Category Archives: Military Analytics

Tertia Optio: An Analysis of the Evolution, Mission, and Capabilities of the CIA’s Special Activities Center

In the lexicon of United States national security, the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Special Activities Center (SAC) represents a unique and often decisive instrument of statecraft. Its Latin motto, Tertia Optio, translates to the “Third Option,” a phrase that encapsulates its core mission: to provide the President with a strategic choice that exists in the high-risk seam between diplomacy (the first option) and overt military intervention (the second option).1 When diplomatic channels are exhausted or infeasible, and the deployment of uniformed military forces is politically untenable or strategically unwise, SAC is the tool the National Security Council turns to for action in the shadows.

The foundation of SAC’s mission is the concept of “covert action.” Legally defined in Title 50 of the United States Code, a covert action is an “activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly”.3 This principle of plausible deniability is the defining characteristic of SAC’s work, distinguishing its operations from the clandestine activities of traditional espionage, where the operation itself is secret but the sponsor’s identity may be revealed if compromised. For SAC, the primary objective is to ensure that even if an operation is exposed, the hand of the United States government remains hidden, thereby mitigating diplomatic fallout and strategic consequences.1

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolution, mission, and capabilities of the Special Activities Center and its predecessors. It traces the unit’s lineage from its genesis in the crucible of World War II with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), through the crucible of the Cold War, the complexities of the Vietnam conflict, and its transformation into the primary counterterrorism vanguard in the post-9/11 era. The analysis will deconstruct the unit’s legal mandate, organizational structure, and the rigorous processes for recruiting and training its elite operators. Furthermore, it will examine the specialized funding, logistics, and armament required to execute its high-stakes missions, providing a definitive assessment of this critical, yet poorly understood, component of American power.

I. Genesis: The OSS and the Forging of a Paramilitary Capability (1942-1960)

The operational DNA of the CIA’s Special Activities Center was forged not in the Cold War but in the global conflict that preceded it. The establishment of the Office of Strategic Services created a new American capability for unconventional warfare and political influence, establishing a doctrinal template and an organizational ethos that would be inherited directly by the CIA. The early covert operations of the Cold War, from political subversion in Italy to coups in Iran and Guatemala, were the first applications of this new instrument of power, demonstrating its effectiveness while simultaneously revealing its potential for controversy.

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Paramilitary Model

Prior to World War II, the United States lacked a centralized, national-level intelligence organization. Intelligence activities were conducted on an ad-hoc basis by various government departments, leaving the nation strategically vulnerable, a fact made brutally apparent by the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.6 In response to this critical deficiency, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the urging of figures like William Stephenson, the senior British intelligence officer in the Western Hemisphere, tasked Colonel William “Wild Bill” Donovan with creating a new intelligence service.6 On June 13, 1942, the Office of Strategic Services was formally established by presidential military order.6 The OSS was explicitly modeled on its British counterparts, the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) for espionage and the Special Operations Executive (SOE) for unconventional warfare, reflecting a foundational reliance on allied expertise in the early stages of its development.2

The OSS was conceived with a dual mission that would become the hallmark of its CIA successor: the collection and analysis of foreign intelligence, and the execution of unconventional warfare.7 This mission was carried out by a diverse and eclectic organization that grew to over 13,000 men and women by 1944, drawing personnel from the military as well as a wide array of civilian professions, including lawyers, academics, and even Hollywood figures, giving rise to the moniker “Oh, So Social”.2

The paramilitary arm of the OSS was the Special Operations (SO) Branch, tasked with conducting guerrilla operations, sabotage, and subversion behind enemy lines.2 The SO Branch pioneered the American way of unconventional warfare, often in close collaboration with the British SOE. Two key examples illustrate the operational template it established:

  • Jedburgh Teams: These were the quintessential force multipliers. Small, three-man teams—typically comprising one American OSS officer, one British SOE officer, and one radio operator from the local resistance (often the Free French)—parachuted into occupied France ahead of the D-Day invasion.2 Their mission was not to engage in large-scale combat themselves, but to arm, train, and lead local resistance fighters. They coordinated airdrops of weapons and supplies, organized guerrilla attacks on German infrastructure, and gathered critical intelligence for advancing Allied conventional forces.2 This model of a small cadre of elite operators embedding with and leading a much larger indigenous force to achieve strategic objectives became the foundational doctrine for future CIA paramilitary operations.
  • Detachment 101: Operating deep in the jungles of Burma, this OSS unit demonstrated the profound impact of unconventional warfare in a different theater. Led by Colonel Carl Eifler, a small contingent of Americans successfully organized, trained, and led an 11,000-strong indigenous force of Kachin tribesmen against the Japanese army.2 This guerrilla army conducted intelligence gathering, sabotage of key Japanese installations, rescue of downed Allied pilots, and direct action missions, inflicting thousands of casualties on the enemy at a minimal cost in American lives.2

Alongside the SO Branch, the OSS also developed a sophisticated psychological warfare capability in its Morale Operations (MO) Branch. Established in 1943, the MO Branch was responsible for creating and disseminating “Black Propaganda”—material designed to appear as if it originated from an enemy source—to sow dissent, confusion, and demoralization within enemy ranks and civilian populations.2 The early integration of kinetic paramilitary action with non-kinetic influence operations established a symbiotic link that would define the CIA’s approach to covert action. The understanding that the “hard” power of paramilitary force is most effective when amplified by the “soft” power of political and psychological influence is a direct legacy of the OSS experience. This integrated approach is the true essence of covert action and is reflected today in the dual structure of SAC’s Special Operations Group (SOG) and Political Action Group (PAG).

The National Security Act of 1947 and the Birth of the CIA’s Clandestine Arm

With the end of World War II, the OSS was dissolved in October 1945, deemed by some, including President Harry S. Truman, to be a wartime necessity unsuited for peace.9 Its functions were fragmented, with its intelligence analysis branch moving to the State Department and its espionage and counter-espionage elements merging into the Strategic Services Unit (SSU) under the War Department.8 In 1946, Truman created the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) as a civilian entity to coordinate intelligence, which soon absorbed the SSU’s clandestine responsibilities.2

The intensifying Cold War, however, quickly demonstrated the need for a permanent, centralized intelligence agency with a global reach. The National Security Act of 1947, a landmark piece of legislation that restructured the U.S. national security apparatus, formally established the Central Intelligence Agency.2 The new agency inherited the OSS’s paramilitary legacy and a significant portion of its veteran personnel.8

The CIA’s authority to conduct covert action was established almost immediately. Within weeks of its founding, a secret annex to National Security Council (NSC) Directive 4 (NSC-4) granted the Agency this powerful and controversial mandate.11 This authority was expanded and codified in June 1948 with NSC 10/2, which authorized the CIA to conduct a wide range of covert operations, including propaganda, economic warfare, sabotage, and “subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups”.13

To manage this new mission, the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was established within the CIA.12 However, in an unusual and ultimately problematic arrangement, the OPC was directed to take its policy guidance from the Departments of State and Defense, operating with significant independence from the rest of the CIA’s clandestine structure.11 This created intense bureaucratic rivalry and operational friction with the CIA’s existing espionage and counter-espionage arm, the Office of Special Operations (OSO).11 The disarray caused by this dual structure became glaringly apparent during the Korean War. In 1952, DCI General Walter Bedell Smith ordered the merger of the OSO and OPC into a single, unified clandestine service: the Deputy Directorate of Plans (DDP).11 This consolidation was a pivotal moment, bringing the Agency’s espionage (intelligence collection) and covert action (influence and paramilitary operations) capabilities under a single, powerful command structure, a model that persists to this day within the Directorate of Operations.

Foundational Case Studies: Early Cold War Covert Action

With its new mandate and consolidated structure, the DDP quickly became a primary instrument of U.S. foreign policy in the Cold War, executing a series of audacious and consequential covert operations that served as the foundational case studies for its future work.

  • 1948 Italian Election: The first major test of the CIA’s political action capabilities came in the Italian general election of 1948. Facing the strong possibility of a victory by the Italian Communist Party (PCI), which was part of the leftist Popular Democratic Front, the Truman administration authorized the CIA to intervene.16 The operation was a textbook example of political action, designed to prevent a democratic outcome deemed hostile to U.S. interests. The CIA funneled millions of dollars to the centrist Christian Democrats and other anti-communist parties to fund their campaigns.1 It orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign, which included writing tens of thousands of letters to Italian-Americans urging them to contact their relatives in Italy, making anti-communist radio broadcasts, and funding the publication of books and articles warning of the consequences of a communist victory.17 The operation was a success; the Christian Democrats won a decisive victory, and the PCI was kept from power.17 This case established the template for the future work of the Political Action Group.
  • 1953 Coup in Iran (Operation Ajax): In 1951, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a move that threatened British economic interests and, in the view of Washington, opened the door to Soviet influence.9 After diplomatic efforts failed, the U.S. and Britain decided to remove him from power. Operation Ajax was a joint CIA/MI6 operation led on the ground by senior CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr..20 The operation was a sophisticated blend of political action and psychological warfare. Roosevelt and his team used CIA funds to bribe members of the Iranian parliament, military officers, and religious leaders.9 They used propaganda assets to plant stories in the press attacking Mosaddegh and organized mob violence, hiring one mob to pose as communists and attack religious symbols, and then hiring a second mob to attack the first, creating chaos and turning public opinion against the Prime Minister.23 The operation culminated in a military-backed coup that overthrew Mosaddegh and restored the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to absolute power.20
  • 1954 Coup in Guatemala (Operation PBSuccess): Encouraged by the low-cost success of Ajax, the Eisenhower administration authorized a more ambitious operation the following year in Guatemala.20 The target was President Jacobo Arbenz, another democratically elected leader whose agrarian land reforms threatened the vast holdings of the American-owned United Fruit Company.9 Operation PBSuccess was a multi-faceted covert action. The CIA selected and funded a proxy leader, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, and trained a small rebel army of a few hundred men in neighboring Honduras and Nicaragua.24 The paramilitary component, however, was secondary to the psychological warfare campaign, codenamed “Operation Sherwood”.25 The CIA established a clandestine radio station, the “Voice of Liberation,” which broadcast propaganda into Guatemala, creating the illusion of a massive popular uprising and reporting fictional battles and defections.25 The psychological pressure, combined with the small-scale invasion by Castillo Armas’s force, was enough to cause the Guatemalan military to abandon Arbenz, who resigned on June 27, 1954.25 Declassified documents reveal that the planning for PBSuccess was ruthless, including the creation of “disposal lists” of Guatemalan officials and communists to be assassinated through “Executive Action,” though the extent to which this part of the plan was carried out remains unclear.24

II. Trial by Fire: The Cold War and Vietnam (1961-1980)

The period from the early 1960s through the mid-1970s was a crucible for the CIA’s covert action arm. It began with a defining and public failure at the Bay of Pigs, which prompted a re-evaluation of the Agency’s role in large-scale paramilitary operations. This led to the creation of a unique hybrid military-intelligence unit in Vietnam, MACV-SOG, which executed some of the most dangerous and clandestine missions of the war. At the same time, the Agency’s global engagements continued, from the jungles of the Congo to the mountains of Bolivia. This era of intense operational activity, however, also sowed the seeds of a profound crisis of accountability, as revelations of assassination plots and other abuses led to the landmark Church Committee investigations and the first-ever legislative framework for congressional oversight of covert action.

The Bay of Pigs (1961): A Defining Failure

In April 1961, the CIA executed a plan, conceived under the Eisenhower administration and approved by the newly inaugurated President John F. Kennedy, to overthrow the communist regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. The operation was designed as a classic paramilitary endeavor: CIA Paramilitary Operations Officers (PMOOs) from the DDP’s Special Operations Division (SOD) trained and armed a 1,500-man brigade of Cuban exiles, known as Brigade 2506, to conduct an amphibious invasion of the island at a remote location called the Bay of Pigs.2

The invasion was a catastrophic failure. The landing site was poorly chosen, and Castro’s forces quickly pinned down the exile brigade. The critical element of the plan—U.S. air support to destroy Castro’s small air force—was scaled back and ultimately withheld by President Kennedy at the last minute, fearing that overt U.S. involvement would be exposed.2 Without air cover, the brigade was overwhelmed. Within three days, the invasion was crushed, with over 100 exiles killed and nearly 1,200 captured.

The Bay of Pigs was a profound public humiliation for the Kennedy administration and the CIA. The failure had a lasting institutional impact. An internal review of the disaster led Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other senior officials to conclude that the CIA was not equipped to manage large-scale paramilitary operations. This led to a significant policy shift, transferring the primary responsibility for such operations from the Agency to the Department of Defense.27 This decision reflected a persistent tension and interdependence between the two organizations that would shape covert operations for decades. The military possessed the scale, logistical capability, and firepower for major operations, but the CIA retained the clandestine tradecraft, indigenous networks, and legal authorities necessary for deniability. The failure in Cuba thus set in motion a cyclical transfer of authority for paramilitary action, a pendulum that would swing back toward a hybrid model in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group (MACV-SOG)

The need for a deniable, unconventional warfare capability in the escalating Vietnam conflict led to the creation of one of the most secret and legendary special operations units in U.S. history. Activated on January 24, 1964, the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group (MACV-SOG) was a joint special operations task force that absorbed many of the CIA’s existing paramilitary programs in the region.28 The unit’s name was deliberately innocuous, a cover for its true purpose.2

MACV-SOG was a unique hybrid organization. Nominally, it was a subordinate command of the U.S. military’s MACV headquarters in Saigon. In reality, it was a clandestine instrument of U.S. policy, with its missions controlled not by the theater commander but by the Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities (SACSA) at the Pentagon, and ultimately by the White House.29 The unit was a multi-service organization staffed by elite volunteers from Army Special Forces (who formed the majority of its personnel), Navy SEALs, Marine Force Reconnaissance, and the Air Force, alongside a significant contingent of CIA paramilitary officers who brought their expertise in clandestine operations.28

SOG’s mandate was to conduct highly classified, cross-border operations “over the fence” into the officially neutral territories of North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.28 Its mission scope was vast and included strategic reconnaissance, direct action raids, ambushes, sabotage, personnel recovery of downed pilots, and large-scale psychological operations (PSYOP).28 The primary target of SOG’s ground operations was the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the vital North Vietnamese logistical network that supplied communist forces in the South.29

The operational doctrine of SOG’s reconnaissance teams (RTs) was a direct descendant of the OSS Jedburgh model. Small teams, typically consisting of two to three American special operators leading six to nine indigenous personnel (often Montagnards, Vietnamese, or Cambodians), would be inserted deep into enemy territory for missions lasting several days.28 To maintain plausible deniability for these violations of neutral territory, SOG operators went “sterile.” They carried no U.S. identification or dog tags, wore sanitized or non-U.S. uniforms like the distinctive “tiger stripe” camouflage, and were armed with non-attributable weapons, including captured AK-47s or weapons with their serial numbers removed.29

Global Engagements

While Vietnam dominated the headlines, the CIA’s paramilitary arm remained active across the globe during this period, executing smaller-scale but politically significant operations.

  • Congo (1960s): In the turbulent post-colonial Congo, CIA PMOOs worked alongside Belgian soldiers and mercenaries to support the pro-Western government of Joseph Mobutu and suppress various rebel factions, including those led by communist-backed insurgents.2
  • Bolivia (1967): Following Che Guevara’s attempt to foment a communist revolution in Bolivia, the CIA dispatched paramilitary specialists to assist the Bolivian military. One of these officers, Felix Rodriguez, a Cuban-American veteran of the Bay of Pigs operation, operated undercover as a Bolivian army officer. He played a key role in coordinating the intelligence and tactical operations of the U.S. Army Special Forces-trained Bolivian Ranger Battalion that ultimately hunted down and captured Guevara.2

The Church Committee and the Dawn of Oversight

The intense operational tempo of the 1960s and early 1970s occurred in an environment of minimal congressional oversight. For the first 27 years of its existence, the CIA operated with a high degree of autonomy, its covert actions largely shielded from legislative scrutiny.9 This era came to an abrupt end in the mid-1970s. The political climate, soured by the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, had fostered a deep public and congressional suspicion of government secrecy and executive power.33

Against this backdrop, a series of explosive revelations in the press, most notably by journalist Seymour Hersh in The New York Times, exposed some of the CIA’s most sensitive secrets, the so-called “family jewels.” These included plots to assassinate foreign leaders like Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba, efforts to destabilize the government of Salvador Allende in Chile, and a massive, illegal domestic spying program against anti-war activists, codenamed Operation CHAOS.9

These revelations prompted Congress to launch the most extensive investigation of the U.S. intelligence community in history. In 1975, the Senate established the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, chaired by Senator Frank Church. The “Church Committee” hearings brought the CIA’s covert actions into the public spotlight and documented a pattern of abuses and executive overreach.9

The establishment of this formal oversight was not a proactive measure of good governance but a direct, reactive consequence of public scandal. The legislative response was swift and profound. In 1974, Congress passed the Hughes-Ryan Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act.33 This landmark legislation provided the first statutory basis for congressional oversight of covert action. It prohibited the expenditure of any appropriated funds by the CIA for operations “other than for obtaining necessary intelligence” unless the President issued a formal, written “Finding” that the operation was “important to the national security of the United States”.33 Crucially, the amendment required that this Finding be reported to the appropriate committees of Congress “in a timely fashion”.5 The Hughes-Ryan Amendment fundamentally altered the legal and political landscape of covert action. It pierced the veil of “plausible deniability” that had long shielded the presidency, establishing for the first time a clear chain of accountability running from the Oval Office to Capitol Hill.37 This marked the end of the era of unrestrained covert action and the beginning of a new, and often contentious, relationship between the spies and their overseers.

III. The Late Cold War and its Consequences (1980-2001)

The 1980s represented a decade of stark contrasts for the CIA’s paramilitary arm, showcasing both the apex of its strategic effectiveness and a profound crisis of legal and constitutional accountability. In Afghanistan, the Agency executed its largest and most successful covert war, a textbook case of unconventional warfare that helped precipitate the collapse of the Soviet Union. Simultaneously, a rogue operation run from the White House to arm rebels in Nicaragua plunged the Reagan administration into the Iran-Contra scandal, a crisis that exposed the fragility of the post-Church Committee oversight framework. The fallout from this scandal would lead directly to the passage of the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act, a landmark piece of legislation that codified the rules for covert action and represented a forceful reassertion of congressional authority over secret foreign policy.

Operation Cyclone (Afghanistan, 1979-1989): The Apex of Paramilitary Success

Following the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, the Carter administration authorized the CIA to provide covert support to the Afghan resistance fighters, known as the Mujahideen. Under the Reagan administration, this program, codenamed Operation Cyclone, grew into the largest and most expensive covert action in CIA history.1

The mission was a classic application of the unconventional warfare doctrine honed by the OSS and MACV-SOG. CIA paramilitary officers, working closely with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), managed a massive logistical pipeline to arm, train, and advise the Mujahideen factions fighting the Soviet army.2 The program’s budget swelled from an initial allocation of a few hundred thousand dollars to over a billion dollars per year by the late 1980s, demonstrating a massive national commitment to the cause.2 The CIA supplied a vast arsenal of weapons, from basic rifles and mortars to sophisticated anti-tank missiles and, most decisively, thousands of FIM-92 Stinger man-portable air-defense systems, which allowed the Mujahideen to effectively challenge Soviet air superiority.

Operation Cyclone is widely credited as a major factor in the Soviet Union’s decision to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan in 1989, a bloody and costly quagmire that contributed to the eventual collapse of the Soviet empire. From a purely operational and strategic perspective, it was a resounding success. However, the operation also had profound and unforeseen long-term consequences. In its single-minded pursuit of defeating the Soviets, the program empowered and armed Islamist factions that would later coalesce into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, creating the very threat that would draw the United States into its own long and costly war in Afghanistan two decades later.

The Iran-Contra Affair (1985-1987): A Crisis of Accountability

While the CIA was waging a congressionally-sanctioned covert war in Afghanistan, a small group of officials within the Reagan administration’s National Security Council (NSC) staff were conducting a secret and illegal foreign policy in the shadows. The Iran-Contra Affair was a complex web of two intertwined covert operations, both of which were designed to circumvent U.S. law and congressional oversight.39

The first operation involved the secret sale of arms to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was the subject of an international arms embargo and officially designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The administration’s motive was to secure the release of seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a terrorist group with close ties to Tehran.39

The second, and more constitutionally damaging, operation involved the illegal diversion of profits from these arms sales to fund the Contra rebels fighting the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.39 This was in direct violation of the Boland Amendment, a series of legislative acts passed by Congress between 1982 and 1984 that explicitly prohibited the use of U.S. government funds to support the Contras’ military or paramilitary operations.40

The entire scheme was run by a small cadre of NSC staff, most notably Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who established a clandestine off-the-books organization referred to as “the Enterprise”.40 This operation deliberately bypassed the CIA and the established legal framework for authorizing and reporting covert action. No Presidential Finding was issued for the diversion of funds, and Congress was not notified; in fact, when questioned, senior administration officials, including National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, repeatedly lied to congressional committees about the NSC’s activities.40 The affair demonstrated a clear and calculated attempt by elements within the Executive branch to subvert the post-Church Committee oversight structures and conduct a secret foreign policy in defiance of the law.

The Iran-Contra scandal was a constitutional crisis that pitted the Executive branch’s claims of authority in foreign policy against the Legislative branch’s power of the purse and its oversight responsibilities. The subsequent investigations and public outcry made it clear that the existing oversight laws contained loopholes that could be exploited.

The passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 was not merely a technical legal update; it was the culmination of a 15-year institutional struggle between the President and Congress over the control of secret foreign policy. It represented Congress’s forceful reassertion of its authority after the Executive branch had actively sought to undermine it. The act significantly strengthened and clarified the legal framework for covert action, closing the specific loopholes that the Iran-Contra actors had exploited.41

The act consolidated the various legislative requirements into a new, comprehensive section of the National Security Act of 1947 (now codified as 50 U.S.C. § 3093).3 Its key provisions were a direct response to the abuses of Iran-Contra:

  • Written, Prospective Findings: It mandated that a Presidential Finding must be in writing and signed by the President before the initiation of a covert action. It explicitly stated that a Finding could not be retroactive, preventing the post-hoc legalization of an already-executed operation.3
  • Specificity and Scope: The Finding must specify every U.S. government department or agency authorized to participate in the operation, a measure designed to prevent the use of deniable cut-outs like the NSC staff.3 It also required the Finding to address whether any third parties (such as foreign governments or private individuals) would be used to fund or execute the operation, a direct response to the secret foreign funding of the Contras.3
  • Timely Notification: It strengthened the requirement for congressional notification, stating that the Finding must be reported to the House and Senate intelligence committees “as soon as possible” and “before the initiation of the covert action,” allowing for an exception for “extraordinary circumstances” where prior notice could be limited to the “Gang of Eight”.3
  • CIA Primacy: It legally designated the CIA as the sole authority for conducting covert action, unless the President formally finds that another agency should do so and reports that decision to Congress.1

This legislation created the modern legal architecture that governs covert action today. It reflects a hard-won and often fragile balance between the Executive’s need for secrecy and flexibility in foreign policy and Congress’s constitutional responsibility to provide oversight and maintain the rule of law.

IV. The Modern Special Activities Center: Post-9/11 Transformation

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were a watershed moment for the U.S. intelligence community and served as a powerful catalyst for the transformation of the CIA’s paramilitary capabilities. In the ensuing years, the Special Activities Division—formally renamed the Special Activities Center (SAC) in a 2015 reorganization—was “reinvigorated with a bigger budget and a newfound sense of purpose”.1 The unit’s focus shifted decisively to counterterrorism, and it assumed a new role as the vanguard of U.S. intervention in hostile environments. This era has been defined by an unprecedented level of integration with U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), creating a hybrid operational model that has blurred the traditional lines between intelligence and military activities.

Reinvigoration and Expanded Mandate

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the United States needed to project power rapidly into one of the most remote and inhospitable places on earth: Afghanistan. With no conventional forces postured in the region, the first responders were not soldiers, but spies.

  • Afghanistan (2001): SAC teams were the first U.S. forces on the ground, arriving in-country a mere 15 days after the attacks.2 The initial eight-man team, codenamed “Jawbreaker” and led by Gary Schroen, linked up with commanders of the Northern Alliance, the loose coalition of Afghan militias opposed to the Taliban regime.45 Operating with large bags of cash to secure allegiances, these small teams of paramilitary officers and case officers acted as the advance force that prepared the operational environment. They built the critical relationships, gathered the intelligence, and designated the targets that enabled the devastatingly effective U.S. air campaign that followed.45 They then guided the U.S. Army Special Forces “A-Teams” that arrived later, famously fighting on horseback alongside their Afghan allies to topple the Taliban regime in a matter of weeks.44 The extreme risks of these early missions were underscored by the death of SAC officer Johnny Michael Spann during the Battle of Qala-i-Janghi, a violent prison uprising of captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters. Spann was the first American to be killed in combat in Afghanistan.45
  • Iraq (2002-2003): The success of the Afghanistan model was replicated in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Months before the main invasion began, SAC teams covertly inserted into the Kurdish-controlled regions of northern Iraq.45 Their mission was twofold: to gather intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s regime and to organize the Kurdish Peshmerga forces into a viable northern front. SAC officers, working alongside U.S. Army Special Forces, trained, equipped, and led the Peshmerga in combat. They successfully defeated the Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Islam and went on to engage and fix numerous divisions of the Iraqi army, preventing them from moving south to counter the main coalition invasion force.1

This strategic pattern, first demonstrated in Afghanistan and then refined in Iraq, solidified SAC’s role as the “tip of the spear” for U.S. intervention. The ability of small SAC teams to operate under the deniable legal authority of Title 50 allows the U.S. to enter a conflict zone, shape the battlefield, and build alliances with indigenous forces long before committing overt military assets. Covert action, in this new paradigm, is not merely an alternative to military force, but a critical preparatory phase for it.

Integration with USSOCOM and High-Value Targeting (HVT)

The post-9/11 era has been defined by an unprecedented level of operational synergy between SAC and the military’s most elite special operations units, particularly the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which includes Delta Force and SEAL Team Six (also known as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU).1 This deep integration has created a hybrid operational model that combines the CIA’s unique legal authorities, extensive intelligence networks, and expertise in clandestine tradecraft with the military’s specialized direct-action capabilities.

This fusion has proven exceptionally effective in the relentless campaign to hunt and eliminate high-value terrorist targets (HVTs) across the globe. The quintessential example of this model is the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. While the operation was executed by operators from SEAL Team Six, it was legally a CIA-led covert action, authorized under a Presidential Finding.46 The CIA’s years of painstaking intelligence work located the compound, and the Agency retained overall command and control of the mission.

This hybrid model, however, has created a fundamental ambiguity at the intersection of intelligence and military operations. It is often difficult to distinguish between a Title 50 intelligence operation (governed by the National Security Act and overseen by the intelligence committees) and a Title 10 military operation (governed by the laws of armed conflict and overseen by the armed services committees). Is the bin Laden raid an intelligence operation because the CIA had the legal authority and command, or a military operation because uniformed soldiers executed the mission? This blurring of lines provides significant operational flexibility, allowing policymakers to choose the legal and command structure best suited to a particular mission’s political sensitivities and operational requirements. However, it also creates profound challenges for legal interpretation and congressional oversight, as different legal frameworks and oversight bodies may have competing jurisdictions over the same activity.35 This hybrid paradigm, which began as an ad-hoc arrangement in the jungles of Vietnam with MACV-SOG, has now become the dominant and institutionalized model for U.S. counterterrorism efforts in non-permissive environments around the world.

The authority for the Special Activities Center to conduct operations that can alter the course of foreign governments is rooted in a complex and evolving architecture of laws, executive orders, and oversight procedures. This framework is designed to provide a legal basis for secret presidential action while simultaneously imposing a system of accountability to prevent abuse. At its core is the mission to provide the President with a “Third Option” that preserves plausible deniability for the United States government.

Defining Covert Action and Plausible Deniability

The fundamental mission of SAC is to execute covert actions as directed by the President.21 As established, the legal definition of covert action is an activity designed to influence foreign conditions where the role of the U.S. government is not apparent or publicly acknowledged.3 This is the essence of plausible deniability, a concept that allows senior policymakers, including the President, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for an operation if it is publicly exposed, thereby mitigating the diplomatic or political consequences.5 This distinguishes SAC’s work from that of the military, whose actions are overt and attributable to the United States.

The legal authority for covert action does not stem from a single source but is built upon a foundation of three key pillars:

  • The National Security Act of 1947: This foundational statute created the CIA and authorized it to “perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security Council may from time to time direct”.1 This broad and somewhat ambiguous clause has historically been interpreted as the statutory basis for the CIA to engage in activities beyond simple intelligence collection, including covert action.
  • Executive Order 12333: Originally issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and subsequently amended, this executive order provides a more detailed framework for the conduct of U.S. intelligence activities. It formally defined covert action as “special activities” and designated the CIA as the executive agent for conducting such operations, unless the President specifically directs another agency to do so.1
  • The Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991: This act, passed in the wake of the Iran-Contra affair, codified into law the procedures for authorizing and reporting covert actions. It made the Presidential Finding the sole legal instrument for approving a covert action and established the modern framework for congressional oversight.3

This complex web of laws and executive orders serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it imposes significant constraints on the Executive branch, creating a formal process of authorization and accountability through the Finding and congressional notification requirements. On the other hand, it provides a clear, congressionally-sanctioned legal basis for the President to take secret action. Once a Finding is signed and Congress is duly notified, the resulting operation is, for all practical purposes, a legally sanctioned act of the U.S. government.32 This framework insulates the activity from domestic legal challenge and provides a defensible position should the operation be exposed. In this sense, the law acts not just as a leash to restrain covert action, but also as a shield to legitimize it.

The Presidential Finding Process

A covert action cannot be legally undertaken on the verbal command of a President alone. The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act established the Presidential Finding as the formal mechanism of authorization.21

  • A Finding is a written document, signed by the President, which determines that a specific covert action is “necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States”.3
  • The process typically begins with a proposal that is reviewed by the National Security Council (NSC), which then makes a policy recommendation to the President.21
  • The Finding must be in writing before an operation is initiated. The only exception is in cases of extreme urgency, where a verbal order can be given, but it must be contemporaneously documented and reduced to a written Finding within 48 hours.3
  • Crucially, a Finding cannot be retroactive; it cannot be used to authorize an operation that has already occurred.4 It must also specify all U.S. government entities that will be involved in a significant way.3

The Oversight Structure

The modern oversight structure is a direct legacy of the Church Committee and the legislative reforms that followed. The CIA is required by law to keep the two congressional intelligence committees—the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)—”fully and currently informed” of its activities, including all covert actions.34

The Presidential Finding must be reported to the leadership of HPSCI and SSCI before the operation begins.4 However, the law recognizes that some operations are so sensitive that even this limited disclosure is deemed too risky by the Executive branch. In these “extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States,” the President may limit the initial notification to a small group of eight senior congressional leaders: the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the HPSCI and SSCI.3 This group is known colloquially as the “Gang of Eight”.48

This “Gang of Eight” provision represents a fragile and often contentious compromise between the Executive’s demand for secrecy and the Legislative’s demand for oversight. While it provides a mechanism for notifying Congress of the most sensitive operations, it also creates a two-tiered system of oversight. The full intelligence committees, which have the staff and expertise to conduct detailed reviews, may not learn of a major covert action until long after it is underway, severely limiting their ability to question, influence, or halt it.5 This remains a point of significant institutional tension between the two branches of government.

VI. Organization and Structure

The Special Activities Center does not operate as an independent entity but is a critical component within the CIA’s broader clandestine service. Its internal structure is designed to provide a full-spectrum covert action capability, combining paramilitary force with political influence operations. This organization has evolved significantly over the decades, often accompanied by a confusing series of name changes for both the unit and its parent directorate.

The Directorate of Operations (DO)

SAC is a division within the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (DO).1 The DO is the Agency’s clandestine arm, responsible for the two core human-centric intelligence missions: Human Intelligence (HUMINT) collection, which involves recruiting foreign agents to provide secret information, and the execution of covert action.11 All SAC officers, including the paramilitary operators, are trained as clandestine case officers, capable of performing both functions.1

The history of the DO’s nomenclature is complex and reflects the organizational shifts and reforms the Agency has undergone. A clear understanding of this evolution is essential to deconflicting historical records.

EraParent Directorate NameParamilitary Unit NameKey Mandate/Focus
1947-1952Central Intelligence Agency (Fragmented)Office of Special Operations (OSO) & Office of Policy Coordination (OPC)OSO: Espionage/Counter-espionage. OPC: Covert Action (Propaganda, Subversion).11
1952-1973Deputy Directorate of Plans (DDP)Special Operations Division (SOD)Consolidation of espionage and covert action under a single directorate.2
1973-2005Directorate of Operations (DO)Special Activities Division (SAD)Renaming and streamlining of the DDP structure.2
2005-2015National Clandestine Service (NCS)Special Activities Division (SAD)Renamed to reflect a broader role in coordinating HUMINT across the Intelligence Community.11
2015-PresentDirectorate of Operations (DO)Special Activities Center (SAC)Reverted to the traditional DO name as part of a modernization initiative; unit renamed to Center.1

The Two Pillars of SAC

The modern Special Activities Center is built upon two distinct but complementary groups, reflecting the dual nature of covert action that dates back to the OSS.1

  • Special Operations Group (SOG): This is the tactical, paramilitary component of SAC, responsible for applying kinetic force in a deniable manner.1 SOG executes the most direct and high-risk missions, including direct action (raids, ambushes, sabotage), unconventional warfare (training and leading foreign guerrilla forces), personnel and material recovery, and special reconnaissance in “non-permissive environments”.1 Its officers are the hybrid operator-spies who are expected to conduct both combat operations and clandestine intelligence collection.1
  • Political Action Group (PAG): This group is the modern successor to the OPC and is responsible for the more traditional, non-violent forms of covert action.1 Its mission is to covertly influence the political, economic, and psychological environment of a foreign country to advance U.S. policy objectives. Its methods include providing secret funding and advice to favored foreign political parties or movements, supporting labor unions or civic groups, conducting psychological operations (PSYOP) through the dissemination of propaganda via media platforms, and engaging in economic warfare and cyberwarfare.1 While SOG represents the “hard edge” of covert action, PAG represents the “soft edge,” manipulating environments rather than destroying targets.

SOG’s Combined Arms Capability

To execute its global paramilitary mission, the Special Operations Group is structured as a small, self-contained, combined-arms force, with specialized branches dedicated to operating in different physical domains.2

  • Ground Branch: This is the primary land-based element of SOG. It is responsible for the full spectrum of ground-based paramilitary operations. The Ground Branch heavily recruits its personnel from the U.S. Army’s elite special operations units, particularly the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Delta Force) and the 75th Ranger Regiment, as well as Army Special Forces (Green Berets).1
  • Maritime Branch: This is the waterborne element of SOG, specializing in operations in coastal, riverine, and open-ocean environments. Its missions can include clandestine infiltration and exfiltration by sea, underwater sabotage, and ship-boarding operations. The Maritime Branch primarily recruits its personnel from the U.S. Navy’s elite special operations units, particularly the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (SEAL Team Six) and other SEAL teams, as well as the Marine Corps’ Force Reconnaissance and Raider Regiment.2
  • Air Branch: This branch provides SAC with a dedicated, clandestine aviation capability. It is responsible for covertly inserting, extracting, and resupplying SAC operators and their assets in denied or politically sensitive areas. The Air Branch is the modern successor to the CIA’s famous proprietary airlines of the Cold War era, such as Air America, which provided critical and deniable air support for Agency operations throughout Southeast Asia.2 Its pilots and aircraft are capable of operating a wide variety of fixed-wing and rotary-wing platforms, often under the cover of front companies, to maintain operational security.

VII. The Operators: Recruitment, Profile, and Training

The effectiveness of the Special Activities Center rests entirely on the quality of its personnel. The unit seeks to create a unique type of operative who combines the tactical lethality and physical toughness of a Tier 1 special operator with the intellectual acuity, interpersonal skills, and clandestine tradecraft of an elite intelligence officer. This “hybrid” operative is forged through a highly selective recruitment process that targets the best of the U.S. military’s special operations community, followed by a rigorous and transformative training regimen.

Personnel Sourcing: The Tier 1 Nexus

Unlike traditional CIA case officers who may be recruited from universities or other civilian professions, SAC’s Paramilitary Operations Officers (PMOOs) and Specialized Skills Officers (SSOs) are almost exclusively drawn from the veteran ranks of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).45 The recruitment process is exceptionally selective, focusing on individuals who have already proven themselves in the most demanding military environments.

There is a heavy emphasis on recruiting from so-called “Tier 1” special mission units (SMUs), such as the U.S. Army’s Delta Force and the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team Six (DEVGRU).1 These individuals are already masters of direct action, counterterrorism, and other specialized military skills. The CIA does not attempt to build this capability from scratch; it acquires it by recruiting personnel who are already at the pinnacle of the military special operations profession.55

The minimum requirements for a PMOO position are formidable. Candidates are typically required to have a bachelor’s degree, a minimum of eight years of active duty experience in a combat arms or special operations field, and a proven record of combat leadership, often including multiple combat deployments.54 Foreign language proficiency and extensive foreign travel are not always required but are highly valued attributes.54

The Psychological Profile

The ideal SAC operator must possess a rare combination of psychological traits. They must be capable of extreme violence and aggression when required, yet also possess the patience, discipline, and subtle interpersonal skills needed to recruit and handle a sensitive human intelligence source.1 They must be able to operate with a high degree of autonomy, making life-or-death decisions with minimal supervision in ambiguous, high-stress, and culturally complex environments.55

Formal psychological studies of elite special forces operators, who form the recruitment pool for SAC, identify a consistent personality profile. Successful candidates tend to score high in conscientiousness (organized, reliable, self-disciplined) and emotional stability (resilient, calm under pressure, low in neuroticism).57 They also demonstrate high levels of adaptability, integrity, and a calculated tolerance for risk.58 They are not reckless thrill-seekers, but rather masters of risk mitigation who can maintain composure and make sound decisions when faced with immediate physical danger.58

The Crucible: Training at “The Farm”

Once selected, new PMOO candidates are put through the CIA’s Clandestine Service Trainee (CST) program, the same initial training pipeline as traditional case officers.1 A significant portion of this and subsequent advanced training takes place at Camp Peary, a highly secure, 9,000-acre U.S. military reservation near Williamsburg, Virginia, known within the intelligence community simply as “The Farm”.60

Training at The Farm is designed to layer the full spectrum of intelligence tradecraft on top of the operator’s existing military skills. The curriculum is immersive and intense, pushing recruits to their physical and mental limits.61 Trainees master the arts of espionage:

  • Tradecraft: They learn how to create and maintain false identities (cover), use secure communication methods, conduct surveillance and counter-surveillance to detect if they are being followed, and plan and execute clandestine operations such as dead drops (leaving material in a secret location for another person to retrieve) and brush passes (exchanging items in a fleeting, unnoticed encounter).61
  • Asset Recruitment and Handling: The core skill of a case officer is the ability to spot, assess, develop, and recruit foreign nationals to become clandestine sources (assets), and then to manage the relationship with those assets to collect intelligence.56
  • Paramilitary Skills: This intelligence training is supplemented with advanced paramilitary instruction. Trainees hone their proficiency with a wide range of U.S. and foreign weapons, practice close-quarters combat in realistic “urban-combat scenarios,” and master skills such as tactical driving, parachuting, and advanced survival, evasion, resistance, and escape (SERE) techniques.55 Former officers have also described training in interrogation techniques, including the use of sleep deprivation and mock executions, though the Agency states such courses were dropped from the curriculum following the Watergate-era investigations.60

The end product of this process is the “hybrid” operative, an individual who does not exist elsewhere in the U.S. government. A single SAC officer is expected to be able to lead an indigenous force in a raid on a terrorist compound, and then, on the same mission, conduct a clandestine meeting to debrief a high-level government source providing critical intelligence. This unique, dual-capability is the core value proposition of the Special Activities Center.

VIII. Funding and Logistics

The execution of deniable covert operations requires a financial and logistical infrastructure that is as clandestine as the operations themselves. Funding for the Special Activities Center is shielded from public scrutiny through the classified “black budget,” and its logistical chain is designed not merely for efficiency, but as a core component of maintaining plausible deniability. For SAC, the ability to acquire and move weapons and equipment that cannot be traced back to the United States is as critical to mission success as the operator’s skill with a firearm.

The Black Budget

Covert actions are not funded through standard, publicly-disclosed government appropriations. Instead, their financing is hidden within the classified portion of the U.S. budget, often referred to as the “black budget”.63 The legal basis for this secrecy dates back to the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949. This law granted the DCI the authority to expend funds “without regard to the provisions of law and regulations relating to the expenditure of Government funds”.13 It specifically allows the Agency to use “unvouchered funds,” meaning that expenditures can be accounted for solely on the certificate of the Director, a mechanism that provides extreme financial secrecy and is essential for funding clandestine operations with minimal risk of exposure.13

While the overall top-line budget for the National Intelligence Program is now declassified and made public each year, the specific budgets for individual agencies like the CIA, and for specific programs within those agencies, remain highly classified. The congressional intelligence committees (HPSCI and SSCI) are the sole bodies responsible for authorizing and providing oversight for these classified budgets, reviewing the funding requests for covert action programs as part of the annual Intelligence Authorization Act.35

The Logistics of Plausible Deniability

For a standard military unit, logistics is the science of moving and maintaining forces and equipment. For SAC, logistics is a central element of the art of covertness. A mission’s deniability can be instantly and catastrophically compromised if an operator is killed or captured with equipment that is clearly of U.S. government origin, such as a standard-issue M4A1 carbine with a traceable serial number.29 Consequently, the entire logistical apparatus supporting SAC must be designed to procure and deliver “sterile” or “non-attributable” materiel.

This requirement has been a constant throughout the unit’s history. During the Vietnam War, MACV-SOG went to extraordinary lengths to support its cross-border operations with deniable equipment. This was a primary mission of the Counterinsurgency Support Office (CISO), which procured everything from sterile, unmarked combat knives made in Japan to suppressed pistols of World War II vintage and captured Soviet-bloc weapons.31 The objective was to ensure that if a SOG team was wiped out in Laos or Cambodia, the enemy would find no equipment that could be definitively linked to the United States.

This principle continues today. The modern SAC contains a dedicated Armor and Special Programs Branch, whose responsibilities include the development, testing, and, crucially, the covert acquisition of new weapons and equipment.52 This branch is tasked with sourcing foreign-made weaponry, such as AK-47 variants and other arms common in conflict zones, through clandestine channels. It also works to sanitize or modify other equipment to remove any identifying marks. This implies the existence of a global, clandestine supply chain that operates in parallel to the overt Department of Defense logistics system, dedicated to ensuring that the operators of the Third Option are equipped to fight and win without leaving a trace.

IX. Armament and Equipment

The weapons and equipment employed by the Special Activities Center are a direct reflection of its unique mission requirements, balancing the need for state-of-the-art lethality with the overriding imperative of plausible deniability. Operators have access to the same high-end, specialized systems used by U.S. military special mission units, but they must also be proficient with a wide array of foreign and “sterile” weapons to suit the clandestine nature of their work. The choice of armament for any given mission is a deliberate calculation based on the operational environment, the political sensitivities, and the need to maintain deniability.

The Operator’s Toolkit

Beyond firearms, a SAC operator’s loadout includes a wide range of specialized equipment designed for clandestine operations in hostile environments. This toolkit often includes:

  • Secure Communications: Encrypted, often concealable, communication devices for maintaining contact with team members and headquarters without risk of interception.67
  • Surveillance and Counter-Surveillance: Miniature cameras, audio recording devices, and handheld signal detectors to sweep for hostile bugs or tracking devices.52
  • Breaching Tools: Portable, non-mechanical tools like the “Breachpen,” a thermite cutting tool, for gaining access to locked or barricaded areas with speed and relative silence.67
  • Concealable Body Armor: Lightweight, low-profile body armor with a protection rating of at least NIJ Level IIIA, designed to be worn covertly under civilian clothing.67
  • Identity Documents: Multiple sets of authentic and backstopped passports and other identity documents for various cover identities to facilitate clandestine international travel.67

Small Arms of the Special Activities Center: A Historical and Contemporary Arsenal

The selection of firearms by SAC and its predecessors has always been a mix of standard U.S. special operations weaponry and non-attributable foreign or sanitized systems.

  • Primary Carbines and Rifles: The compact carbine is the primary individual weapon for most paramilitary operations.
  • During the Vietnam War, the Colt XM177 series, a short-barreled carbine variant of the M16 often referred to as the CAR-15, was the trademark weapon of MACV-SOG recon teams. Its compact size was ideal for the dense jungle environment.31
  • In the modern era, SAC operators have access to the full range of advanced carbines used by USSOCOM. This includes the ubiquitous M4A1 and its highly modified, shorter-barreled variants like the Close Quarters Battle Receiver (CQBR) / Mk 18.69 The Heckler & Koch
    HK416, a piston-driven carbine favored by units like Delta Force and DEVGRU for its enhanced reliability, is also a primary weapon.69 For missions requiring greater range and stopping power, the 7.62x51mm NATO FN
    SCAR-H (Mk 17) is likely available.69
  • Sidearms and Personal Defense Weapons:
  • The modern sidearm of choice is often the Glock series of pistols, particularly the compact Glock 19 in 9mm.62 The Glock’s legendary reliability, simplicity, and global ubiquity make it an excellent choice for a clandestine operative; its widespread use by military and police forces around the world makes it more difficult to trace back to a specific U.S. unit.72 Other high-quality pistols, such as the
    SIG Sauer P226 and P228, long favored by Navy SEALs, are also used.69
  • For specialized roles requiring a high rate of fire and armor-piercing capability in a concealable package, the Heckler & Koch MP7 Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) is employed.69
  • Specialized and Suppressed Systems:
  • Sound suppressors are critical tools for covert operations, used for eliminating sentries, ambushing enemy patrols, and capturing prisoners without alerting nearby forces. Historically, SAC’s predecessors used a variety of suppressed weapons. The High Standard HDM, a.22 caliber pistol with an integral suppressor, was an OSS legacy weapon used well into the Vietnam War.31 Other specialized systems included the British-made
    Welrod, a manually operated bolt-action pistol that was exceptionally quiet, and suppressed submachine guns like the Carl Gustaf m/45, known as the “Swedish K”.31
  • Today, suppressors are modular and can be readily attached to most modern carbines and pistols, making them a standard accessory rather than a specialized weapon system.
  • Non-Attributable and Foreign Weaponry:
  • The most critical category of weapons for maintaining plausible deniability is foreign-made, non-attributable firearms. The Kalashnikov family of assault rifles, particularly the AK-47 and its many variants, is the archetypal sterile weapon. Its presence in every conflict zone on the planet makes it impossible to trace its origin to the CIA.29 SAC operators are proficient in the use of these and other foreign weapon systems, which are often procured clandestinely to arm both the operators themselves and the indigenous forces they are training and leading.
EraWeapon SystemTypeCaliberNoteworthy Characteristics/Use
OSS / WWIIHigh Standard HDMSuppressed Pistol.22LROSS legacy weapon; highly effective for silent elimination of sentries.31
OSS / WWIIM3 “Grease Gun”Submachine Gun.45 ACPSimple, inexpensive U.S. submachine gun used by OSS operatives.69
Vietnam / SOGXM177E2 (CAR-15)Carbine5.56x45mmTrademark weapon of SOG recon teams; compact with a distinctive moderator.31
Vietnam / SOGAK-47Assault Rifle7.62x39mmPrimary sterile/non-attributable weapon used by SOG and supplied to indigenous forces.29
Vietnam / SOG“Swedish K” (Carl Gustaf m/45)Suppressed SMG9x19mmCIA-supplied, untraceable weapon; valued for its accuracy in suppressed fire.31
Vietnam / SOGM79 Grenade LauncherGrenade Launcher40mmOften cut down (“pirate gun”) for portability; provided immense firepower for small teams.29
Post-9/11HK416Carbine5.56x45mmStandard Tier 1 weapon; piston system offers high reliability in harsh environments.69
Post-9/11Mk 18 CQBRCarbine5.56x45mmShort-barreled M4A1 variant, highly effective for close-quarters battle.69
Post-9/11Glock 19Pistol9x19mmReliable, concealable, and globally ubiquitous, aiding in plausible deniability.69
Post-9/11HK MP7Personal Defense Weapon4.6x30mmCompact, high rate of fire, armor-piercing capability; used by elite units.69

Conclusion: The Enduring Role of the Third Option

The history of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Special Activities Center is a microcosm of the evolution of American power in the post-World War II era. From the ad-hoc brilliance of the OSS Jedburghs in occupied France to the hyper-professionalized, legally-structured, and technologically-advanced operators of the 21st century, the unit has undergone a profound transformation. Yet, its fundamental mission has remained remarkably constant: to provide the President of the United States with a deniable instrument to achieve foreign policy objectives in the shadows, a “Third Option” when diplomacy and overt military force are not viable.

The analysis demonstrates a clear through-line of operational doctrine, originating with the OSS’s pioneering use of small teams to lead large indigenous forces, a model of unconventional warfare that has been replicated and refined in every major conflict since. This paramilitary capability has always been inextricably linked with political and psychological action, a symbiotic relationship that allows SAC to shape environments through both influence and force.

The evolution of the unit has not been a smooth or linear progression. It has been shaped by a recurring cycle of secret action, public exposure, operational failure, and legislative reaction. The public failure of the Bay of Pigs led to a re-evaluation of the CIA’s role in large-scale paramilitary operations. The scandals of the 1970s, exposed by the Church Committee, gave birth to the modern era of congressional oversight. The constitutional crisis of the Iran-Contra affair forced a further strengthening of the legal framework, creating the robust, if sometimes contentious, system of Presidential Findings and congressional notification that governs covert action today.

In the post-9/11 world, SAC has been reinvigorated, assuming the role of the vanguard force in the global war on terrorism. Its deep integration with U.S. Special Operations Command has created a new paradigm of hybrid intelligence-military operations, blurring traditional lines of authority and oversight but proving devastatingly effective on the battlefield.

Looking forward, the Special Activities Center faces a new and complex set of challenges. The shift in U.S. national security focus from counterterrorism to great power competition with near-peer adversaries like China and Russia will require a different set of skills and a higher tolerance for risk. The ubiquity of surveillance technology, from satellites to social media, makes maintaining plausible deniability more difficult than ever before. Furthermore, the rise of cyber warfare as a primary domain of conflict presents both new opportunities and new threats for the Political Action Group.

Despite these challenges, the core logic that led to the creation of the OSS in 1942 remains as relevant today as it was then. There will always be situations where overt diplomacy is insufficient and overt military action is too escalatory. In that dangerous space between words and war, the need for a clandestine, deniable capability—a Third Option—will remain an enduring and indispensable feature of U.S. national security strategy, ensuring the continued relevance of the Special Activities Center for the foreseeable future.



If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Sources

  1. Special Activities Center – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Center
  2. CIA Special Activities Center: The Third Option – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 19, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/cia-special-activities-center-the-third-option/
  3. 50 U.S. Code § 3093 – Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093
  4. (a) Presidential findings – U.S.C. Title 50 – WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title50/html/USCODE-2009-title50-chap15-subchapIII-sec413b.htm
  5. COVERT ACTION AND CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT – CIA, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90B00017R000200380004-8.pdf
  6. Office of Strategic Services – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Services
  7. The Office of Strategic Services (OSS): A Primer on the Special Operations Branches and Detachments of the OSS – ARSOF History, accessed September 19, 2025, https://arsof-history.org/articles/v3n4_oss_primer_page_1.html
  8. Secret Agents, Secret Armies: The Short Happy Life of the OSS | The National WWII Museum, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/wwii-secret-agents-the-oss
  9. Central Intelligence Agency – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
  10. Establishment of the CIA – the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/establishment-cia
  11. Take a Peek Inside CIA’s Directorate of Operations – CIA, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/take-a-peek-inside-cias-directorate-of-operations/
  12. Approved For Release 2002/01/04: CIA-RDP89B00552R000800090005-8, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP89B00552R000800090005-8.pdf
  13. Note on U.S. Covert Action Programs – Historical Documents – Office …, accessed September 19, 2025, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v26/actionsstatement
  14. Note on U.S. Covert Actions – Historical Documents – Office of the Historian – State Department, accessed September 19, 2025, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v27/actionsstatement
  15. Note on U.S. Covert Action Programs – state.gov, accessed September 19, 2025, https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xxvi/4440.htm
  16. Approaches to understanding the inaugural CIA covert operation in Italy: Exploding useful myths – University of East Anglia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://research-portal.uea.ac.uk/en/publications/approaches-to-understanding-the-inaugural-cia-covert-operation-in
  17. 1948 Italian general election – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Italian_general_election
  18. “By All Feasible Means” | Wilson Center, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/all-feasible-means
  19. CIA activities in Italy – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Italy
  20. Operation Ajax (1953) – The Latin Library, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/operationajax.html
  21. Covert Action | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/covert-action
  22. A SHORT HISTORY OF CIA INTERVENTION IN SIXTEEN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP74B00415R000400170054-7.pdf
  23. The Secret CIA Operation That Haunts U.S.-Iran Relations | Retro Report, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/secret-cia-operation-ajax-oil-us-iran-video/retro-report/
  24. (ESTIMATED PUB DATE) CIA AND GUATEMALA ASSASSINATION PROPOSALS 1952-1954, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000135796.pdf
  25. CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents – The National Security Archive, accessed September 19, 2025, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/
  26. (ESTIMATED PUB DATE) OPERATION PBSUCCESS; THE UNITED STATES AND GUATEMALA 1952- – CIA, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000134974.pdf
  27. About SOG – MACV-SOG, accessed September 19, 2025, https://sogsite.com/about-sog/
  28. MACV-SOG History | Article | The United States Army – Army.mil, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/216498/macv_sog_history
  29. MACV-SOG: The special operators who took on the Vietnam War’s most dangerous and secret missions – SOF Support Foundation, accessed September 19, 2025, https://sofsupport.org/macv-sog-the-special-operators-who-took-on-the-vietnam-wars-most-dangerous-and-secret-missions/
  30. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam_%E2%80%93_Studies_and_Observations_Group
  31. Behind Enemy Lines: Guns of Vietnam’s SOG Warriors | An Official Journal Of The NRA, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/behind-enemy-lines-guns-of-vietnam-s-sog-warriors/
  32. Covert Operations – Scholarship Archive, accessed September 19, 2025, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/context/faculty_scholarship/article/5134/viewcontent/Damrosch_Covert_Operations.pdf
  33. Hughes–Ryan Amendment – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes%E2%80%93Ryan_Amendment
  34. Congressional Oversight of US Intelligence Activities – Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW, accessed September 19, 2025, https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3593&context=facpub
  35. Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Selected Definitions | Congress.gov, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45175
  36. Hughes-Ryan Act – Oxford Reference, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095949292?p=emailAmp1RubaImX1Y&d=/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095949292
  37. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes%E2%80%93Ryan_Amendment#:~:text=The%20act%2C%20as%20amended%2C%20established,President%20regarding%20exposed%20covert%20actions.
  38. 12 Reaching the inflection point | The Hughes-Ryan Amendment and intelligence oversight | Genevieve Lester – Taylor & Francis eBooks, accessed September 19, 2025, https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/oa-edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781003164197-18&type=chapterpdf
  39. The Iran-Contra Affair – Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy, accessed September 19, 2025, https://levin-center.org/what-is-oversight/portraits/the-iran-contra-affair/
  40. Excerpts of the Report of Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair | The American Presidency Project, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/excerpts-the-report-congressional-committees-investigating-the-iran-contra-affair
  41. Intelligence Authorization Act – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Authorization_Act
  42. COVERT ACTION AND CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT: A DEONTOLOGY | Office of Justice Programs, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/covert-action-and-congressional-oversight-deontology
  43. S.2834 – Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 101st Congress (1989-1990), accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/2834
  44. CIA Paramilitary Operations – National Defense Briefing Series, accessed September 19, 2025, https://ndbsinc.org/cia_paramilitary_operations/
  45. CIA Special Activities Division (SAD) / Special Operations Group – American Special Ops, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/cia-special-operations/
  46. Covert Action as an Intelligence Subcomponent of the Information Instrument – National Defense University Press, accessed September 19, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/1841071/covert-action-as-an-intelligence-subcomponent-of-the-information-instrument/
  47. COVERT ACTION POLICY APPROVAL AND COORDINATION PROCEDURES – CIA, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP97M00248R000500190016-9.pdf
  48. Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Selected Congressional Notification Requirements | Congress.gov, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45191
  49. What the CIA Tells Congress (Or Doesn’t) about Covert Operations …, accessed September 19, 2025, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence/2019-02-07/what-cia-tells-congress-or-doesnt-about-covert-operations-barrcheneybush-turning-point-cia
  50. CIA Job Requirements | Go Law Enforcement, accessed September 19, 2025, https://golawenforcement.com/federal-law-enforcement-job-requirements/cia-job-requirements/
  51. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Center#:~:text=Within%20SAC%20there%20are%20at,Group)%20for%20covert%20political%20action.
  52. CIA Special Operations: The SECRET World of America’s Black Ops Units, accessed September 19, 2025, https://gendischarge.com/blogs/news/cia-special-operations
  53. 10 Fascinating CIA Missions, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/ten-fascinating-cia-missions/
  54. CIA Paramilitary Operations and Specialized Skills Officer Jobs, Degrees and Training Requirements, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.ciaagentedu.org/paramilitary-operations-and-specialized-skills-officer/
  55. CIA Paramilitary Operations Officers: CIA’s Elite Operatives – General Discharge, accessed September 19, 2025, https://gendischarge.com/blogs/news/cia-paramilitary-operations
  56. Camp Peary aka “The Farm” : r/homeland – Reddit, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/homeland/comments/1k4ets7/camp_peary_aka_the_farm/
  57. Personality Traits of Special Forces Operators: Comparing Commandos, Candidates, and Controls – Gwern, accessed September 19, 2025, https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/conscientiousness/2022-huijzer.pdf
  58. Spies & Spying Personality Profiling: Special Forces – Spyscape, accessed September 19, 2025, https://spyscape.com/article/spies-spying-personality-profiling-special-forces
  59. An Exploration of the Psychological Traits Deemed Crucial for Success in UK Special Forces Operators – MDPI, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/9/1194
  60. Camp Peary – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Peary
  61. Cia Training At The Farm – Welcome Home Vets of NJ, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.welcomehomevetsofnj.org/textbook-ga-24-1-03/cia-training-at-the-farm.pdf
  62. Spy School Confidential: CIA Officers Spill Secrets About What Really Happens at ‘the Farm’, accessed September 19, 2025, https://spyscape.com/article/spy-school-confidential-cia-officers-spill-secrets-about-what-really-happens-at-the-farm
  63. Covert operation – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operation
  64. Note on U.S. Covert Action Programs – Historical Documents – Office of the Historian, accessed September 19, 2025, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve10/actionsstatement
  65. History of the MACV/SOG Knife – The Armory Life, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.thearmorylife.com/history-of-the-macv-sog-knife/
  66. SOG Knife – Wikipedia, accessed September 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOG_Knife
  67. CIA Gear + Kit | TRDCRFT, accessed September 19, 2025, https://trdcrft.com/cia-gear/
  68. MACV-SOG: Secret Operations in Vietnam – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 19, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/macv-sog-secret-operations-in-vietnam/
  69. US Special Operations | Weapons – American Special Ops, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/
  70. Special operations forces armament requirements – European Security & Defence, accessed September 19, 2025, https://euro-sd.com/2024/05/articles/38258/special-operations-forces-armament-requirements/
  71. 10 Guns of the Special Forces – Warrior Lodge, accessed September 19, 2025, https://warriorlodge.com/pages/10-guns-of-the-special-forces
  72. Realistically, what would the modern primary hand gun used by an MI6 agent in today’s world be? : r/JamesBond – Reddit, accessed September 19, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/1mb7o0n/realistically_what_would_the_modern_primary_hand/
  73. The Glock handgun- the CIA and Law Enforcement weapon of choice | by Robert Morton, accessed September 19, 2025, https://spyauthor.medium.com/the-glock-handgun-the-cia-and-law-enforcement-weapon-of-choice-3f52572b8573

Tokushusakusengun: An Analysis of the Japan Special Forces Group’s Evolution, Capabilities, and Future Trajectory

The Japan Special Forces Group (特殊作戦群, Tokushusakusengun), or SFGp, represents a critical and rapidly evolving component of Japan’s national security architecture. Established on March 27, 2004, the unit’s creation marked a significant departure from Japan’s post-war defense posture, which had been strictly limited by its constitution. Born from the necessity to address modern asymmetric threats like international terrorism and guerrilla warfare, the SFGp was developed through a deliberate “leapfrog” strategy, leveraging intensive mentorship from elite U.S. Special Operations Forces to rapidly achieve a high level of proficiency. In the two decades since its inception, the unit has matured from a nascent, domestically-focused counter-terrorism force into a seasoned, operationally-tested Tier 1 asset. Through deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, and continuous, complex joint exercises with key allies like the United States and Australia, the SFGp has honed its tactics and proven its strategic utility. Its current arsenal reflects a preference for world-class, battle-proven weapon systems that ensure interoperability with its primary partners. Looking forward, as Japan implements its transformative 2022 National Security Strategy and assumes a more proactive role in regional security, the SFGp is poised to become an even more vital instrument of national policy. Its future missions will likely expand to include enabling Japan’s new counterstrike capabilities, countering grey-zone aggression, and deepening security partnerships throughout the increasingly contested Indo-Pacific.

Section 1: Genesis and Doctrinal Foundation (1998-2008)

The formation of the Special Forces Group was a deliberate and calculated response to a changing global security landscape that rendered Japan’s traditional defense posture insufficient. Its establishment required navigating unique constitutional constraints and relied heavily on foundational mentorship from experienced foreign partners, setting the stage for its rapid development into a capable special operations force.

1.1. Post-Cold War Imperatives: The Strategic Need for a Japanese Special Operations Force

The security framework of post-World War II Japan was fundamentally defined by Article 9 of its 1947 Constitution, which renounced war as a sovereign right and prohibited the maintenance of land, sea, or air forces.1 The Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF), established in 1954, were consequently cast in a strictly defensive role, designed to repel a direct invasion of Japanese territory.3 While this model was adequate during the bipolar standoff of the Cold War, the subsequent era introduced a new spectrum of asymmetric threats, including transnational terrorism and state-sponsored guerrilla warfare, for which conventional military forces were ill-equipped to counter.5

This capability gap became increasingly apparent throughout the 1990s. In response, the Japan Defense Agency (JDA), the precursor to the Ministry of Defense, formally proposed in 1998 the creation of a specialized unit within the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF) to handle counter-terrorism and related special warfare missions.6 This was a significant evolution in Japanese defense policy, acknowledging that the existing police-led Special Assault Teams (SAT), whose existence was officially confirmed in 1996, were insufficient to counter military-level threats on Japanese soil.8

1.2. Foundational Mentorship: The Critical Role of U.S. SOF in Shaping Doctrine and Structure

Recognizing a near-total lack of domestic experience in modern special operations doctrine and tactics, the JGSDF embarked on a strategy of importing expertise from the world’s most seasoned practitioners. A select cadre of soldiers, drawn primarily from the JGSDF’s elite 1st Airborne Brigade, was dispatched to the United States for intensive training.6 This was not an incremental evolution of existing capabilities but a deliberate “leapfrog” development model, designed to bypass decades of organic doctrinal development and create a peer-level SOF unit in a compressed timeframe.

The choice of mentors was highly strategic. Initial training was conducted with the U.S. Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Delta Force), signaling a clear intent to build a high-end direct action and hostage rescue capability from the unit’s inception.6 This was supplemented by extensive and ongoing training with the U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Berets), which shaped the unit’s broader understanding of unconventional warfare, special reconnaissance, and foreign internal defense.7 The unit’s first commander, Colonel Takashi Araya, personally underwent a year of training with the Green Berets to fully immerse himself in these modern concepts.7

This foundational knowledge was institutionalized through two precursor platoons formed within the 1st Airborne Brigade: the “G Platoon” (Formation Unit) and the “S Platoon” (Research Unit).6 These elements were tasked with adapting the lessons learned in the U.S. to the Japanese context and developing the new unit’s framework. The U.S. involvement was deeply integrated; bilingual personnel from the U.S. Army’s 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) (1st SFG(A)), forward-deployed in Okinawa, were instrumental in helping the JGSDF establish its initial Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E), ensuring doctrinal and material compatibility from day one.10

1.3. Activation of the Special Operations Group (SOG): Initial Mandate, Organization, and Armament

On March 27, 2004, the unit was officially activated as the Special Operations Group (SOG) (特殊作戦群, Tokushusakusengun), under the direct command of the JDA chief.9 Its initial mandate was primarily focused on domestic contingencies: countering terrorist activities and deterring or defeating guerrilla-style attacks on Japanese soil.9 The unit is headquartered at Camp Narashino in Funabashi, Chiba, a strategic co-location with the 1st Airborne Brigade, which serves as its primary recruitment pool for ranger and airborne-qualified soldiers.1

The initial structure was modeled on Western counterparts, comprising a headquarters element, three combat companies, and a training unit, with an estimated total strength of approximately 300 operators.1 To ensure mission flexibility across diverse environments, each company was organized with specialized platoons proficient in different insertion methods and operational environments, including High Altitude-Low Opening (HALO) parachuting, maritime operations, mountain warfare, and urban combat.7 Initial small arms were a combination of standard JGSDF issue, such as the Howa Type 89 rifle, and foreign-procured weapons that reflected the influence of their U.S. mentors.10

1.4. Early Integration and Re-designation to Special Forces Group (SFGp)

The unit’s strategic importance was further solidified on March 28, 2007, when it was integrated into the newly established Central Readiness Force (CRF). The CRF was a high-readiness command designed to centrally manage the JGSDF’s specialized units to respond to a wide range of domestic and international crises, including disaster relief and overseas deployments.1 This organizational change formally embedded the SOG as a key national crisis response asset.

A year later, on March 26, 2008, the unit’s English designation was officially changed from Special Operations Group to Special Forces Group (SFGp).6 This seemingly subtle change in nomenclature was strategically significant. While “Special Operations” is a term often associated with the direct-action missions of counter-terrorism, “Special Forces” carries the broader doctrinal connotations of its primary U.S. partner, the Green Berets, encompassing missions like unconventional warfare and security force assistance. The name change signaled an official expansion of the unit’s mission set, moving beyond a purely reactive, domestic counter-terrorist role toward that of a more versatile force capable of supporting Japan’s evolving “proactive contribution to peace” policy on the international stage.

Section 2: Operational Maturation and Tactical Evolution (2008-Present)

Since its initial establishment, the SFGp has transitioned from a newly-formed unit into a seasoned, operationally-tested force. This maturation has been driven by a combination of real-world deployments under challenging conditions and a relentless pace of intensive, continuous joint training with allied special operations forces. These experiences have been the primary catalysts for shaping the unit’s tactics, procedures, and strategic utility to the Japanese state.

2.1. Evolving Mission Profile: From Domestic Contingency to Overseas Deployment

The SFGp’s core mission set is officially defined as direct action, special reconnaissance, and unconventional warfare, encompassing tasks such as infiltration into hostile territory, sabotage, hostage rescue, and combating guerrilla or enemy commando forces.10 While its initial focus was on domestic threats, the unit’s operational mandate quickly expanded to include overseas missions, primarily centered on the protection and evacuation of Japanese nationals and assets abroad.1 These deployments are carefully conducted within the constraints of Japan’s constitution, typically limiting them to roles designated as non-combat.7

Domestically, the SFGp sits at the apex of Japan’s national counter-terrorism response framework. Its first publicly acknowledged domestic operation was providing high-level security and a crisis response capability during the 42nd G7 Summit in Mie Prefecture in 2016. The unit was placed on standby to support and augment police tactical units like the SAT in the event of a major terrorist attack, demonstrating its role as the nation’s ultimate backstop for complex security threats.7

2.2. Analysis of Key Operations: A Catalyst for Capability Growth

Though officially non-combatant, the SFGp’s overseas deployments have served as invaluable proving grounds, testing the unit’s full operational cycle under the extreme stress of real-world crises. These missions provide the hard data and experience necessary to validate and refine tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), forging a far more effective force than one that has only ever trained.

  • Iraq (2005): The unit’s baptism by fire occurred just a year after its formation. A small detachment of at least four operators deployed to Samawah, Iraq, to provide low-profile close protection for the commander of the JGSDF’s humanitarian contingent, the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group.7 Operating in a persistent, low-intensity conflict zone, this mission tested advanced skills in surveillance detection, secure movement, and emergency response, providing critical lessons in operational security and sustainment in a hostile environment.
  • Afghanistan (2021): During the chaotic collapse of the Afghan government and the subsequent evacuation from Kabul, SFGp personnel were deployed as part of the JSDF task force for the “Evacuation of Japanese Nationals and Others from Afghanistan”.10 The mission was severely hampered by the rapidly deteriorating security situation at Hamid Karzai International Airport, limiting the number of evacuees.15 However, it served as a critical test of the SFGp’s strategic reach, rapid deployment capabilities, and ability to execute a non-combatant evacuation operation (NEO) in a high-threat, non-permissive environment.
  • Sudan (2023): SFGp operators were again tasked with a NEO mission, deploying to Djibouti to support the evacuation of Japanese citizens from the escalating conflict in Sudan.10 This deployment further cemented the unit’s role as Japan’s premier tool for complex overseas rescue and evacuation missions, demonstrating a maturing capability to project a specialized force globally on short notice.

2.3. Forging Interoperability: The Doctrinal Impact of Joint Exercises

Continuous, high-level joint training with allied SOF remains the primary engine for the SFGp’s tactical and doctrinal advancement. This consistent engagement ensures the unit remains at the cutting edge of SOF TTPs and maintains seamless interoperability with its key partners.

  • Silent Eagle: This is the cornerstone training event for the SFGp, a recurring bilateral exercise held with the U.S. Army’s 1st SFG(A).1 These exercises are highly sophisticated, often simulating complex scenarios directly relevant to Japan’s primary security concerns, such as repelling an amphibious invasion of a disputed island.1 The training curriculum is comprehensive, covering the full spectrum of special operations skills, including military free-fall (MFF) parachuting, advanced marksmanship, and close-quarters battle (CQB).1
  • Partnership Diversification: Beyond its foundational relationship with U.S. SOF, the SFGp has actively pursued a strategy of partnership diversification. This is not merely for tactical benefit but represents a strategic hedge, creating a more resilient and flexible regional security network. The deepening training relationship with Australian SOF is the prime example. This partnership has evolved from basic counter-terrorism skill-sharing in preparation for the Tokyo Olympics to “much more complex training activities” in direct response to regional instability caused by China and North Korea.16 Exercises like “Dusk Samurai 2022,” a joint counter-terrorism drill with the Australian Army’s 2nd Commando Regiment, build deep interoperability and create a potent U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral SOF network.10
  • Global Engagement: The unit’s commitment to learning and interoperability extends globally. SFGp operators have been observed at multinational exercises such as Operation Flintlock in Africa and have attended the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC) in the U.S., ensuring they remain abreast of the latest global SOF trends and technologies.7

2.4. Command and Control Integration

In a significant organizational restructuring in March 2018, the Central Readiness Force was disbanded. The SFGp, along with other high-readiness units, was placed under the command of the newly established Ground Component Command (Rikujō Sōtai).7 This move streamlined the command and control structure for all JGSDF ground operations, better integrating the SFGp into Japan’s overall defense architecture and facilitating more effective joint operations.

Section 3: Current Arsenal: A Technical Analysis of SFGp Small Arms

The selection of small arms by the Special Forces Group reflects a clear doctrine prioritizing performance, modularity, and interoperability with key allied special operations forces. The unit’s arsenal is dominated by proven, high-performance systems of foreign design, indicating a procurement philosophy that values battlefield effectiveness over domestic production for its most critical tools. This technical analysis details the primary weapon systems confirmed to be in service with the SFGp.

3.1. Primary Carbines: The Shift to Piston-Driven Systems

The SFGp has largely standardized on short-stroke gas piston carbines, which offer significant reliability advantages over traditional direct impingement systems, particularly when suppressed or used in harsh maritime environments.

  • Heckler & Koch HK416: Procured by the Ministry of Defense as “Special Rifle B,” the HK416 is a primary weapon for the SFGp.10 Its piston operating system prevents hot propellant gases from entering the receiver, which keeps the action cleaner and cooler, significantly reducing malfunctions and maintenance requirements.18 The weapon features a free-floating, cold hammer-forged barrel with an extended service life, and a cyclic rate of fire of approximately 850 rounds per minute.20 SFGp operators have been observed using variants with both 10.4-inch and 14.5-inch barrels, outfitted with a full suite of modern accessories.10
  • FN SCAR Family (L & H): Developed for U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the modular FN SCAR family is also in service with the SFGp.7 Its key features include a short-stroke gas piston system, a monolithic upper receiver, and the ability for operators to quickly change barrels to suit mission requirements.24 The 5.56x45mm NATO SCAR-L provides a lightweight, adaptable platform, while the 7.62x51mm NATO SCAR-H offers substantially increased range and barrier penetration capability.23
  • Colt M4A1: While piston-driven systems are favored, the JGSDF acquired M4A1 carbines via Foreign Military Sales (FMS) in 2007-2008.10 These likely serve in training roles and ensure baseline interoperability with U.S. forces, who widely field the platform.7

3.2. Battle Rifles and Designated Marksman Systems

For engagements requiring greater range and terminal effect than 5.56mm platforms can provide, the SFGp employs 7.62x51mm NATO battle rifles.

  • Heckler & Koch HK417: This rifle is essentially a scaled-up version of the HK416, sharing its reliable short-stroke gas piston operating system and ergonomic controls.26 This commonality simplifies training and logistics. The HK417 is a versatile weapon, capable of providing a high volume of suppressive fire in its battle rifle configuration or engaging targets with high precision out to 800 meters when employed as a Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) with a longer, accurized barrel and magnified optics.27

3.3. Sidearms and Sub-Machine Guns

Sidearms and specialized close-quarters weapons are selected for reliability, accuracy, and specific mission profiles.

  • SIG Sauer P226: A legendary service pistol renowned for its exceptional reliability and accuracy, the P226 is a primary sidearm for the SFGp.10 Used by numerous elite units, including the U.S. Navy SEALs, this 9x19mm DA/SA pistol features a durable alloy frame and a standard magazine capacity of 15 to 20 rounds.29
  • Heckler & Koch USP Tactical: The selection of this pistol indicates a requirement for a highly accurate, suppressor-ready sidearm.10 The USP Tactical features an extended, threaded barrel with a rubber O-ring for consistent lockup, adjustable high-profile sights to clear a suppressor, and an adjustable match trigger.32
  • Heckler & Koch MP7: A compact Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) that bridges the gap between a sub-machine gun and a carbine. It fires a proprietary high-velocity, small-caliber 4.6x30mm round capable of defeating soft body armor.7 Its light weight and compact size make it an ideal weapon for close protection details, vehicle operations, and extreme close-quarters battle.

3.4. Sniper Systems

For precision long-range engagements, the SFGp relies on a proven, military-grade bolt-action rifle.

  • Remington M24 Sniper Weapon System (SWS): The standard sniper rifle of the U.S. Army for decades, the M24 is built on the robust and accurate Remington 700 long action.34 Chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO, it features a 24-inch, heavy, free-floating barrel with specialized 5R rifling that enhances accuracy and reduces fouling.36 The system is capable of consistent sub-minute-of-angle (MOA) accuracy and is effective against man-sized targets out to 800 meters and beyond.36

3.5. Support Weapons

To provide sustained suppressive fire at the team level, the SFGp utilizes a light machine gun that is standard issue across the JGSDF.

  • FN MINIMI: Known in U.S. service as the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), the 5.56x45mm MINIMI is a reliable, air-cooled, gas-operated light machine gun.10 It is typically fed by disintegrating-link belts but has the capability to accept standard STANAG rifle magazines in an emergency, providing crucial logistical flexibility.38 With a cyclic rate of 750-1,000 rounds per minute, it allows a small team to gain and maintain fire superiority.

3.6. Ancillary Systems

The effectiveness of these weapon platforms is magnified by the integration of modern ancillary systems. The SFGp is confirmed to use a wide array of attachments, including M203 40mm grenade launchers, Knight’s Armament QDSS-NT4 suppressors, and advanced electro-optics such as the GPNVG-18 quad-tube night vision goggle, ensuring the unit has technological parity with other world-class special operations forces.10

Table 3.1: Summary of Current SFGp Small Arms

Weapon SystemTypeCaliberOperationWeight (Unloaded)Rate of Fire (Cyclic)Effective RangeSources
H&K HK416Assault Rifle / Carbine5.56×45mm NATOShort-Stroke Gas Piston3.12 kg (6.88 lb) (10.4″ bbl)~850 rpm300−600 m10
FN SCAR-LAssault Rifle / Carbine5.56×45mm NATOShort-Stroke Gas Piston3.29 kg (7.3 lb)550−650 rpm~500 m10
FN SCAR-HBattle Rifle7.62×51mm NATOShort-Stroke Gas Piston3.58 kg (7.9 lb)550−650 rpm~600 m10
H&K HK417Battle Rifle / DMR7.62×51mm NATOShort-Stroke Gas Piston4.40 kg (9.7 lb) (16.5″ bbl)~600 rpm~800 m10
Remington M24 SWSSniper Rifle7.62×51mm NATOBolt-Action5.4 kg (12.1 lb)N/A800−1,000 m10
FN MINIMI (M249)Light Machine Gun5.56×45mm NATOGas-Operated, Open Bolt7.5 kg (16.5 lb)750−1,000 rpm600−800 m (Area)10
H&K MP7Personal Defense WeaponHK 4.6×30mmShort-Stroke Gas Piston1.9 kg (4.2 lb)~950 rpm~200 m7
SIG Sauer P226Sidearm9×19mm ParabellumShort Recoil, DA/SA964 g (34.0 oz)N/A~50 m10
H&K USP TacticalSidearm9mm /.45 ACPShort Recoil, DA/SA748 g (26.4 oz) (9mm)N/A~50 m10

Section 4: The Future of the SFGp in a New Era of Japanese Defense

The future trajectory of the Special Forces Group is inextricably linked to the profound shifts occurring in Japan’s national defense policy. As Tokyo moves toward a more proactive security posture to address an increasingly severe regional environment, the SFGp’s role, missions, and capabilities are set to expand significantly, cementing its position as a critical tool of Japanese statecraft.

4.1. The Influence of Japan’s National Security Strategy on Special Operations

The trio of strategic documents released in December 2022—the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Defense Buildup Plan—collectively represent the most significant evolution in Japan’s defense policy since the end of World War II.41 These documents officially pivot Japan from a passive, “exclusively defense-oriented” posture to a proactive one designed to deter and respond to specific threats, with a clear focus on the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Russia.42

Key tenets of this new strategy include the acquisition of long-range “counterstrike capabilities” and a major emphasis on strengthening cross-domain operations that integrate space, cyber, and electromagnetic warfare with traditional domains.45 This strategic reorientation will inevitably broaden the scope of missions assigned to the SFGp, as it is the JSDF’s most suitable asset for the kind of high-risk, low-visibility, and asymmetric tasks that this new doctrine requires.

4.2. Projected Mission Sets: Counterstrike, Grey-Zone, and Regional Security

As Japan’s defense policy evolves, the SFGp’s mission set is expected to expand into new and more complex areas.

  • Counterstrike Enablement: Japan’s investment in stand-off munitions like Tomahawk cruise missiles and domestically developed hypersonic glide vehicles is a strategic game-changer.46 However, the effectiveness of these “hammers” depends entirely on the “scalpel” that can provide accurate, real-time targeting data in a contested environment. The SFGp is the only JSDF asset capable of covertly infiltrating hostile territory to conduct special reconnaissance, terminal guidance for precision munitions, or pre-strike direct action against enemy air defenses and command-and-control infrastructure. Their role will be less about independent action and more about being the critical enabling node in a larger, cross-domain kill chain.
  • Grey-Zone Warfare: The SFGp is the ideal instrument to counter “grey-zone” aggression—coercive actions by state and non-state actors that fall below the threshold of conventional warfare.7 This includes scenarios like the infiltration of Japan’s remote southwestern islands by hostile “maritime militias” or unidentified special forces. The unit’s extensive training in counter-guerrilla warfare and island defense, honed during exercises like Silent Eagle, makes it the primary response option for such ambiguous threats.1
  • Expanded Regional Security Cooperation: As Japan deepens its security partnerships throughout the Indo-Pacific with nations like Australia, India, the Philippines, and others, the SFGp will likely assume a greater role in security force assistance.3 This could involve training and advising partner-nation special forces, conducting joint exercises to build regional capacity, and enhancing interoperability among a coalition of like-minded nations. This mission mirrors the traditional role of U.S. Special Forces and would position the SFGp as a key contributor to regional stability.
  • Information and Psychological Warfare: In a notable public statement, a former SFGp commander highlighted the need for SOF to engage in non-kinetic warfare, including psychological operations and counter-intelligence, to “deliver a message to opponents” and create doubt in an adversary’s mind.16 This indicates a doctrinal shift toward leveraging the SFGp’s unique skills in the cognitive domain of modern conflict.

4.3. Anticipated Armament Modernization

To meet the demands of these future missions, the SFGp will continue to be a priority recipient of advanced equipment.

  • Howa Type 20 Assault Rifle: The JGSDF’s new standard-issue rifle, the Howa Type 20, is a modern, domestically produced platform featuring a short-stroke gas piston system, excellent ergonomics, M-LOK rails for modularity, and enhanced environmental resistance.49 While the SFGp currently uses premier foreign rifles, it will likely adopt the Type 20. This adoption serves a dual purpose: it provides a modern rifle while also allowing the SFGp to function as an operational testbed. By subjecting the Type 20 to the extreme demands of special operations, any weaknesses in the design can be rapidly identified and fed back to the manufacturer, ultimately improving the weapon for the entire JGSDF.10
  • Next-Generation Systems: With Japan’s defense budget slated to approach 2% of GDP, significant funds will be available for advanced technology.43 The SFGp will be a prime candidate to field next-generation systems, including sophisticated unmanned aerial and ground systems for reconnaissance and strike, advanced networked soldier systems, and cutting-edge optics and sensors that provide a decisive information advantage on the battlefield.52

4.4. The SFGp’s Role within a Restructured JSDF

The planned establishment of a permanent joint headquarters (PJHQ) by March 2025 is a critical reform designed to unify command of the JGSDF, JMSDF, and JASDF, enabling seamless cross-domain operations.41 The SFGp, as an inherently joint-enabling asset, will be a cornerstone of this new structure. The PJHQ will provide a streamlined, centralized command-and-control mechanism for deploying the SFGp in complex, multi-service operations. Furthermore, the PJHQ commander will serve as the direct counterpart to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command commander, which will dramatically enhance the speed and effectiveness of bilateral SOF coordination in a crisis.41

Conclusion

In the two decades since its founding, the Japan Special Forces Group has undergone a remarkable transformation. It has evolved from a conceptual necessity, born in response to the post-Cold War threat environment, into a mature, highly capable, and strategically vital special operations force. This evolution was not accidental but the result of a deliberate strategy of intensive foreign mentorship, rigorous training, and validation through real-world operational deployments. The unit’s current capabilities and world-class arsenal place it among the premier special operations forces in the Indo-Pacific region.

The SFGp’s journey is a direct reflection of Japan’s own transformation on the world stage. As Japan sheds the last vestiges of its post-war passivity and embraces its role as a proactive contributor to regional and global security, the SFGp stands as the most potent and flexible military instrument to advance these new strategic objectives. From countering grey-zone coercion in the East China Sea to enabling long-range counterstrike capabilities and building the capacity of regional partners, the SFGp will be at the forefront of Japan’s efforts to defend its interests and uphold a free and open Indo-Pacific. It is, and will continue to be, the tip of this new Japanese spear.



If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Sources Used

  1. silent eagle – ARSOF History, accessed September 6, 2025, https://arsof-history.org/articles/pdf/v19n1_silent_eagle.pdf
  2. Self-Defense Force – Military – Britannica, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Self-Defense-Force
  3. Japan Self-Defense Forces – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces
  4. Japan’s Self-Defense Forces | Proceedings – December 1965 Vol. 91/12/754, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1965/december/japans-self-defense-forces
  5. Evolution of Japanese security policy and the House of Councilors – Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/C5A73EE2329E505FE3BBAFBE5F2B51F2/S1468109921000086a.pdf/evolution_of_japanese_security_policy_and_the_house_of_councilors.pdf
  6. Special Forces – A Comparative Look at Japan’s JSFG and the U.S. Green Berets, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/us-japan-armys-special-forces.html
  7. Japanese Special Forces Group (SFGp) – – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/japanese-special-forces-group-sfgp/
  8. Special Assault Team – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Assault_Team
  9. About: Special Forces Group (Japan) – DBpedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://dbpedia.org/page/Special_Forces_Group_(Japan)
  10. Special Forces Group (Japan) – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_Group_(Japan)
  11. Special Forces Group (Japan) – Wikiwand, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Special_Forces_Group_(Japan)
  12. 特殊作戦群 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%89%B9%E6%AE%8A%E4%BD%9C%E6%88%A6%E7%BE%A4
  13. Weapons of the JGSDF – Small Arms Defense Journal, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/weapons-of-the-jgsdf/
  14. Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Iraq_Reconstruction_and_Support_Group
  15. Examining Japan’s Afghanistan Evacuation Operations | Nippon.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00765/
  16. Japan’s special forces need more ‘regional’ cooperation, officer says – Breaking Defense, accessed September 6, 2025, https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/japans-special-forces-need-more-regional-cooperation-officer-says/
  17. US Army, JGSDF and Australian Army Unite for Yama Sakura 89, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.usarpac.army.mil/Our-Story/Our-News/Article-Display/Article/4285321/us-army-jgsdf-and-australian-army-unite-for-yama-sakura-89/
  18. Heckler & Koch HK416 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416
  19. The history of the HK416 in modern warfare – Task & Purpose, accessed September 6, 2025, https://taskandpurpose.com/military-life/history-hk416-modern-warfare/
  20. HK416 – Heckler & Koch, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.heckler-koch.com/en/Products/Military%20and%20Law%20Enforcement/Assault%20rifles/HK416
  21. HK 416 / HK416-A5 5.56mm x 45, accessed September 6, 2025, https://hk-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HK416_HK416-A5-Info-Sheet.pdf
  22. HK416 | Delta Force – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/delta-force/weapons/hk416.php
  23. FN SCAR – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR
  24. Smooth Operator: A Brief History of the FN SCAR – NRA Blog, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/10/smooth-operator-a-brief-history-of-the-fn-scar/
  25. Special Forces Weapons – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-forces/weapons/
  26. HK417 – Heckler & Koch, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.heckler-koch.com/en/Products/Military%20and%20Law%20Enforcement/Assault%20rifles/HK417
  27. SAS – Weapons – HK417 – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/hk417.php
  28. Heckler & Koch HK417 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK417
  29. SIG Sauer P226 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P226
  30. SIG P226 | SIG P228| US Special Operations | Weapons – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/sig-p226-p228.php
  31. Heckler & Koch USP – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_USP
  32. USP TACTICAL – HK USA, accessed September 6, 2025, https://hk-usa.com/product/usp-tactical/
  33. 10 Guns of the Special Forces – Warrior Lodge, accessed September 6, 2025, https://warriorlodge.com/pages/10-guns-of-the-special-forces
  34. M24 American 7.62mm Sniper Weapon System (SWS) – ODIN – OE Data Integration Network, accessed September 6, 2025, https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/869709ced4929b17ef961a1bf210be13
  35. M24 Sniper Rifle Review – rifleshooter.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://rifleshooter.com/2022/10/m24-sniper-rifle-review/
  36. U.S. ARMY M24 SWS – Sniper Central, accessed September 6, 2025, https://snipercentral.com/u-s-army-m24-sws/
  37. M24 SWS | Sniper Weapon System | US Special Operations, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/m24-sniper-weapon-system.php
  38. Minimi Machine Gun | British Army LMG Gun Overview & Specs – Defense Advancement, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defenseadvancement.com/projects/5-56mm-minimi-light-machine-gun/
  39. F89A1 Minimi – Royal Australian Navy, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.navy.gov.au/capabilities/weapons/f89a1-minimi
  40. FN HERSTAL SCAR H CAL. 7,62x51mm – TR Equipement, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tr-equipement.com/en/our-products/armement/armes/44-fn-herstal-scar-h-cal-762x51mm.html
  41. What Japan’s Military Reorganization Means for US-Japanese Bilateral Operations, accessed September 6, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-japans-military-reorganization-means-for-us-japanese-bilateral-operations/
  42. Japan’s Shift to a More Robust Self-Defense Policy | Arms Control Association, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-06/features/japans-shift-more-robust-self-defense-policy
  43. Japan: an emerging security provider in the Indo-Pacific? – Friends of Europe, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.friendsofeurope.org/insights/critical-thinking-japan-an-emerging-security-provider-in-the-indo-pacific/
  44. Military Trends in the Neighboring Countries of Japan, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.mod.go.jp/en/publ/w_paper/wp2019/pdf/DOJ2019_1-1-2.pdf
  45. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.mod.go.jp/j/press/wp/wp2025/pdf/DOJ2025_Digest_EN.pdf
  46. Japan´s changing defense strategy | DEFENSEMAGAZINE.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defensemagazine.com/article/japans-changing-defense-strategy
  47. Japan Announces Deployment Plans for Upgraded Type-12 SSM and Hypersonic Glide Missile – The Aviationist, accessed September 6, 2025, https://theaviationist.com/2025/09/03/japan-announces-deployment-ssm-hypersonic-missiles/
  48. Japan–India Strategic Evolution in the Indo-Pacific: Partnerships, Security, and Regional Order – Air University, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4266921/japanindia-strategic-evolution-in-the-indo-pacific-partnerships-security-and-re/
  49. Japan’s modern Howa Type 20 – Service rifles from around the world | Sandboxx, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.sandboxx.us/news/japans-modern-howa-type-20-service-rifles-from-around-the-world/
  50. Howa Type 20 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howa_Type_20
  51. Howa Type 20 – Wikiwand, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Howa_Type_20
  52. Japan’s Defence Budget Surge: A New Security Paradigm – RUSI, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/japans-defence-budget-surge-new-security-paradigm
  53. Japan Defense Market Size, Growth Drivers, Trends Report 2025-2030 – Mordor Intelligence, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/japan-defense-market
  54. Joint Forces HQ in Japan Planned – FEDweek, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.fedweek.com/armed-forces-news/joint-forces-hq-in-japan-planned/

The Strategic Acceleration of U.S.-Philippine Defense Cooperation in 2025

The year 2025 has marked a historic and unprecedented acceleration in the U.S.-Philippine defense alliance, transforming a partnership historically focused on counter-terrorism and legacy obligations into a forward-looking, integrated defense architecture aimed at establishing credible deterrence against state-level coercion. This strategic deepening is not a unilateral U.S. initiative but a symbiotic response to a rapidly evolving regional security environment, characterized by persistent “gray zone” aggression in the West Philippine Sea, and a fundamental doctrinal shift within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The confluence of these factors has created the political will and strategic imperative for a series of landmark cooperative actions.

Key vectors of this transformation in 2025 include: the operationalization of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) sites as a distributed network of strategic support and power projection hubs; a qualitative leap in the complexity and strategic messaging of joint military exercises, most notably Balikatan 25; the approval of major Foreign Military Sales, including F-16 multi-role fighter aircraft, that promise to modernize the AFP’s conventional capabilities; and the establishment of foundational agreements for defense industrial and classified intelligence cooperation.

Collectively, these year-to-date activities represent the most significant enhancement of the alliance in decades. They signal a shared commitment to uphold international law and defend Philippine sovereignty through a posture of “Peace through Strength.” The United States has moved decisively to equip, train, and posture alongside a Philippine ally that has, in turn, demonstrated a clear-eyed resolve to pivot its defense strategy from internal security to external, archipelagic defense. The result is a more resilient, capable, and interoperable alliance, better positioned to deter conflict and maintain stability in a critical corridor of the Indo-Pacific. This report details and analyzes the specific actions undertaken since January 2025 that constitute this strategic acceleration.

I. The Strategic Imperative: Context for an Alliance Reinvigorated

The rapid deepening of the U.S.-Philippine defense partnership in 2025 did not occur in a vacuum. It is a direct and necessary response to a strategic environment defined by escalating coercion and a corresponding realignment of defense priorities in Manila. U.S. actions throughout the year are best understood as a calculated effort to reinforce an ally facing sustained pressure, while capitalizing on a window of strategic alignment to modernize the alliance for the challenges of the 21st century.

The Evolving Threat Landscape: China’s Coercive “Gray Zone” Campaign

Throughout 2025, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has continued and intensified its campaign of coercion against the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea (WPS), the portion of the South China Sea within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This campaign deliberately operates in the “gray zone”—below the threshold of conventional armed conflict—utilizing maritime law enforcement and paramilitary assets to assert unlawful territorial claims and harass Philippine vessels. This pattern of behavior, building on incidents from previous years, has been a primary catalyst for Manila’s strategic reorientation.1

Incidents in 2025 have demonstrated a consistent and dangerous pattern. Both the China Coast Guard (CCG) and the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) have been implicated in a long list of offenses against Philippine sovereignty, including routine harassment of Filipino fishermen and dangerous altercations with Philippine servicemembers conducting resupply missions.1 In January, China deployed the 165-meter CCG vessel 5901, colloquially known as the “monster ship,” to Scarborough Shoal, a traditional Filipino fishing ground well within the Philippine EEZ, in a clear act of intimidation.3

The behavior of Chinese vessels has grown increasingly reckless. In one notable incident, a PLAN warship collided with a CCG ship while aggressively pursuing a Philippine vessel, highlighting the dangerous and unprofessional seamanship employed by Chinese forces.1 In another, CCG vessels shadowed a multilateral naval exercise involving the Philippines, U.S., Australia, and Canada, with a Type 052 destroyer and a Type 054 frigate maneuvering within 40 nautical miles of the allied flotilla near Scarborough Shoal.4 These actions are not random encounters but part of a calculated strategy to normalize a Chinese presence, challenge Philippine sovereignty, and test the resolve of the U.S.-Philippine alliance. Compounding this physical intimidation is a persistent disinformation campaign, in which Beijing consistently and bizarrely blames the Philippines for instigating these incidents, signaling a clear intent to continue its coercive activities without de-escalation.1

Manila’s Doctrinal Shift: The Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept (CADC)

In response to this sustained pressure, the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has initiated a fundamental rewriting of Philippine national defense strategy. For decades, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) was structured and postured primarily for internal security operations, focusing on counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism. Recognizing that the principal threat to national sovereignty had shifted from internal actors to an external state aggressor, Philippine policymakers developed the Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept (CADC).1

The CADC represents a historic pivot for the AFP. It refocuses the military’s procurement, training, and force posture on external threats and the defense of the nation’s maritime territory.1 The core tenets of the new strategy emphasize the development of capabilities in littoral combat operations, maritime security, air defense, and asymmetric warfare, all designed to protect the full extent of the Philippine archipelago.1 This doctrinal shift is not merely theoretical; it is being backed by tangible investments. In 2025, the Philippines accepted the delivery of two new guided-missile corvettes from South Korea, a clear move to bolster its maritime operational capabilities in line with the CADC’s priorities.1 The CADC provides the U.S. with a clear strategic framework for its security assistance, ensuring that American support is aligned with a coherent, Philippine-led vision for its own defense. This has created a fertile ground for deeper cooperation, as Manila’s strategic priorities are now fully synchronized with U.S. regional objectives of upholding a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Washington’s Response: Reaffirming the Mutual Defense Treaty and “Peace through Strength”

The United States has responded to both China’s coercion and the Philippines’ strategic resolve with a series of high-level policy affirmations designed to add clarity and credibility to its alliance commitments. The inaugural visit of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to the Philippines on March 27-28, 2025, was a landmark event in this regard. In a joint statement with Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro Jr., the two leaders set a robust agenda for the alliance, framed by the guiding principle of achieving “Peace through Strength”.5

The most significant outcome of this visit was the explicit and public reaffirmation that the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) extends to armed attacks on either country’s armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft—including those of their coast guards—anywhere in the South China Sea.5 This clarification was a critical strategic move. China has overwhelmingly relied on its “white hull” CCG vessels to harass the Philippines, operating under the assumption that such actions would not trigger a military response covered by the MDT. By explicitly including the coast guard under the treaty’s umbrella, the U.S. has removed this calculated ambiguity. An armed attack on a Philippine Coast Guard vessel is now publicly defined as a potential trigger for a U.S. military response, forcing Beijing to recalculate the risks of its primary tool of coercion. This extends the U.S. security guarantee directly to the front lines of the gray zone conflict, a powerful deterrent message delivered without the deployment of a single new asset.

This combination of factors has created a unique dynamic in 2025. Each aggressive act by Beijing, intended to intimidate Manila, has instead provided the Marcos administration with the political capital and strategic justification to deepen its security relationship with Washington.1 This, in turn, allows the U.S. to accelerate its support for a willing and strategically aligned partner. In effect, China’s coercive strategy has become a catalyst for the very outcome it seeks to prevent: a more robust, capable, and integrated U.S. military partnership with the Philippines, postured to defend the archipelago and uphold the rules-based order in the South China Sea.

II. Enhancing Interoperability: From “Shoulder-to-Shoulder” to a Combined Force

The renewed strategic alignment between Washington and Manila has been translated into tangible operational capability through a series of increasingly complex and realistic joint military exercises and patrols in 2025. These activities have moved beyond foundational interoperability drills to rehearse specific, high-end warfighting scenarios directly relevant to the defense of the Philippine archipelago. The scale, scope, and multilateral nature of these engagements underscore a clear intent to build a truly combined force capable of deterring and, if necessary, defeating external aggression.

Balikatan 25: A Deep Dive into the Alliance’s Most Complex Exercise

The 40th iteration of Exercise Balikatan (Tagalog for “shoulder-to-shoulder”), held from April 21 to May 9, was the largest and most complex to date. The exercise involved more than 14,000 service members, including 10,000 U.S. troops and 6,000 from the Philippines, with significant participation from the Australian Defence Force and the Japan Self-Defense Force.7 This year’s exercise was distinguished by several key innovations that signal a profound shift in its strategic purpose.

The centerpiece of Balikatan 25 was the introduction of a “Full Battle Test,” a novel concept that incorporated real-world forces into a virtual and constructive exercise scenario.9 This test simulated a full-scale defense of Philippine sovereignty, moving beyond traditional field training to stress high-level command and control (C2), bilateral planning, and joint decision-making processes in a contested environment.9 The exercise spanned all five operational domains—air, land, sea, space, and cyber—reflecting the alliance’s commitment to preparing for the complexities of modern, multi-domain warfare.9

A powerful demonstration of the exercise’s new focus was the deployment of the U.S. Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) to Batan Island.5 NMESIS is a mobile, ground-based anti-ship missile system. Its deployment to a key island in the Luzon Strait, a critical maritime chokepoint, was not a generic training event but a practical rehearsal for denying access to a strategic sea lane to a hostile navy. This deployment, along with six other Combined Joint All-Domain Operations (CJADO) events, enhanced capabilities in air and missile defense, counter-landing, and maritime security and strike.8

The exercise was structured around four primary components to ensure comprehensive training 9:

  1. Command-and-Control Exercise (C2X): U.S. and AFP forces operated parallel Joint Task Forces, synchronizing actions through a Combined Coordination Center to refine high-level C2.
  2. Field Training Exercise (FTX): This component included the CJADO live-fire events focused on maritime security and coastal defense across Luzon and Palawan.
  3. Multilateral Maritime Exercise (MME): The U.S. Navy, Philippine Navy, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force conducted joint naval drills in the Philippines’ EEZ along the coast of Luzon.
  4. Combined Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (CJLOTS): This operation enhanced the combined force’s ability to deliver heavy equipment and supplies to shore without relying on fixed port facilities, a critical capability for archipelagic operations.

Maintaining Presence and Asserting Rights: A Year of Joint Patrols

Complementing the capstone Balikatan exercise, 2025 has seen a sustained tempo of joint patrols designed to maintain presence, uphold freedom of navigation, and build operational familiarity in the South China Sea. These Maritime Cooperative Activities (MCAs) have grown in both scale and multilateral participation.

The year began with a significant show of force from January 17-18, when the U.S. and the Philippines conducted their first MCA of 2025. Unprecedentedly, the exercise involved the entire U.S. Navy Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group (CSG-1), including the aircraft carrier, its air wing, a guided-missile cruiser, and multiple destroyers. They operated alongside the Philippine Navy’s BRP Andres Bonifacio and BRP Antonio Luna.12 The inclusion of a full carrier strike group represented a major escalation in the scale and visibility of these patrols, sending an unambiguous message of U.S. commitment.

This was followed by a joint air patrol in February over the South China Sea near Scarborough Shoal. This patrol featured Philippine Air Force FA-50 fighter jets flying in formation with U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer strategic bombers, explicitly demonstrating the allies’ commitment to freedom of overflight in international airspace.15

The trend toward multilateralism was further solidified during the September 12-13 Multilateral MCA. This activity brought together the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS John Finn, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s tank landing ship JS Osumi, and the Philippine Navy’s frigate BRP Jose Rizal.16 The inclusion of Japan, along with Australia’s participation in exercises like ALON 2025—their largest-ever joint exercise with the Philippines, held in Palawan—demonstrates a deliberate strategy to build a “networked security architecture”.6 By involving other like-minded regional partners, the U.S. and the Philippines are internationalizing the issue of freedom of navigation and demonstrating a broad, unified front in support of the rules-based order. This approach complicates Beijing’s strategic calculus, transforming what it attempts to frame as a bilateral dispute into a wider test of regional stability and international law.


Table 1: Major U.S.-Philippine Joint Military Exercises and Patrols (2025)

Exercise/Activity NameDatesKey U.S. AssetsKey AFP AssetsKey Partner NationsStrategic Objectives / Key “Firsts”
Maritime Cooperative Activity (MCA)Jan 17-18USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group (CSG-1), P-8A PoseidonBRP Andres Bonifacio, BRP Antonio Luna, FA-50 FightersN/AFirst full U.S. Carrier Strike Group inclusion in a bilateral MCA; reinforced deterrence and freedom of navigation.12
Joint Air PatrolFebruaryB-1B Lancer Strategic BombersFA-50 Fighter JetsN/AUnderscored freedom of navigation and overflight near Scarborough Shoal; enhanced air domain awareness and interoperability.15
Exercise Balikatan 25Apr 21 – May 910,000 troops, NMESIS, F-16s, F/A-18s, Apaches, Ospreys6,000 troops, various naval and air assetsAustralia, Japan40th iteration; first-ever “Full Battle Test” scenario; first deployment of NMESIS to the Luzon Strait; comprehensive multi-domain operations.7
Exercise ALON 2025AugustU.S. Forces (unspecified)AFP Forces (unspecified)AustraliaLargest-ever joint exercise between the Philippines and Australia, focused on forcible entry operations in Palawan.6
Multilateral Maritime Cooperative Activity (MMCA)Sep 3-4U.S. Naval AssetsBRP Jose RizalAustralia, CanadaQuadrilateral exercise inside the Philippine EEZ; shadowed by Chinese warships, demonstrating real-world operational context.4
Multilateral Maritime Cooperative Activity (MMCA)Sep 12-13USS John Finn (DDG-113), P-8A PoseidonBRP Jose Rizal (FF-150), FA-50s, C-208BJapanTrilateral exercise focused on anti-submarine warfare, interdiction, and combined maneuvers in the West Philippine Sea.16

III. Building a Credible Defense: U.S. Materiel Support and Capability Development

Parallel to enhancing operational interoperability, the United States has made substantial commitments in 2025 to the material modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. This support, channeled through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and a new framework for industrial cooperation, is directly tailored to address the capability requirements outlined in the Philippines’ Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept (CADC). The year’s initiatives signal a strategic evolution from a simple FMS relationship to a more integrated partnership aimed at building a credible, self-reliant Philippine defense posture for the long term.

Modernizing the Philippine Air Force: The F-16 and TH-73A Foreign Military Sales

The year 2025 witnessed two landmark FMS approvals that promise to transform the capabilities of the Philippine Air Force (PAF). These sales represent a significant U.S. investment in the Philippines’ ability to defend its own airspace and maritime territory.

On April 1, 2025, the U.S. State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Philippines of a squadron of F-16 fighter jets for an estimated cost of $5.58 billion.20 The proposed package includes sixteen F-16C Block 70/72 single-seat aircraft and four F-16D Block 70/72 two-seat aircraft, along with advanced engines, radars, and a comprehensive suite of munitions.22 This sale, if finalized, would be the Philippines’ largest-ever arms purchase and would provide the PAF with a modern, fourth-generation multi-role fighter capability for the first time in decades.23 According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the F-16s will enhance the PAF’s ability to conduct maritime domain awareness, air defense, and suppression of enemy air defenses, while also expanding interoperability with U.S. forces.22 This is more than a simple hardware transfer; it represents a multi-decade strategic commitment that will bind the two air forces through integrated training, maintenance, and operational planning.

Just two weeks later, on April 15, 2025, the State Department approved a possible sale of TH-73A training helicopters and associated support for an estimated $120 million.24 While smaller in value, this sale is a critical enabler for the AFP’s overall modernization. The DSCA noted that the TH-73A platform will serve as the primary method for improving pilot training and skills, helping to ensure the development of a proficient rotary-wing aviator corps.25 This foundational investment is essential for the AFP to effectively operate its current and future helicopter fleet.


Table 2: Proposed U.S. Foreign Military Sales to the Philippines (2025)

Platform/SystemDSCA Notification DateEstimated CostKey ComponentsStated Capability Enhancement for AFP
F-16 C/D Block 70/72 AircraftApril 1, 2025$5.58 billion16 F-16C & 4 F-16D aircraft, F110-GE-129D or F100-PW-229 engines, APG-83 SABR AESA radars, Viper Shield EW systems, advanced missiles and bombs.22Enhance maritime domain awareness, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), and aerial interdiction capabilities; expand interoperability with U.S. forces.22
TH-73A Training HelicoptersApril 15, 2025$120 millionTH-73A helicopters, aircraft simulator, spare engines, fuel tanks, commercial avionics, and support services.25Improve pilot training and skills to ensure the development of a proficient rotary-wing aviator corps capable of meeting current and future threats.25

Investing in Asymmetric Advantage: Unmanned Systems and Advanced Sensors

Recognizing the economic constraints facing the Philippines and the asymmetric nature of the threat in the West Philippine Sea, a major focus of U.S. support in 2025 has been on providing cost-effective unmanned systems.1 Unmanned platforms were identified as a priority area during Secretary Hegseth’s March visit and in the subsequent Joint Vision Statement.5

This effort is being operationalized through the U.S. Department of Defense’s Maritime Security (MARSEC) Consortium, a public-private initiative designed to rapidly deliver asymmetric and autonomous capabilities to partners in Southeast Asia.28 The Philippines is a key recipient of this program, which is providing unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and other autonomous systems to enhance maritime domain awareness and surveillance capabilities within its EEZ.3 These systems offer a persistent, low-cost means of monitoring vast maritime areas, directly supporting the CADC’s emphasis on asymmetric capabilities to deter aggression.1

Defense Industrial Cooperation: From Purchaser to Partner

Perhaps the most strategically significant development in 2025 was the shift toward deeper defense industrial cooperation, aimed at transforming the Philippines from a passive recipient of U.S. hardware into an active partner in the regional defense industrial base. This policy was formalized in the Joint Vision Statement on U.S.-Philippine Defense Industrial Cooperation, released on March 28.27

This foundational document outlines a shared interest in strengthening defense industrial resilience to advance mutual security and prosperity. It identifies several priority areas for near-term cooperation, including:

  • Unmanned systems (co-production and logistics)
  • Ammunition components and energetics
  • Critical minerals refinement
  • Logistics support, including ship and aircraft maintenance and repair
  • Additive manufacturing (3-D printing) 27

The stated goal is to support the Philippines as it develops its own defense industrial base, in line with its Self-Reliant Defense Posture (SRDP) Revitalization Act, while also contributing to the resilience of the broader U.S. and allied supply chain.27 This vision was put into action in August, when the US-ASEAN Business Council led its largest-ever Aerospace, Defense, and Security (ADS) Mission to the Philippines. The mission brought 26 leading U.S. companies, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, to Manila to explore concrete opportunities for co-production, joint development, and technology transfers with Philippine counterparts.29 This initiative represents a strategic evolution from a patron-client FMS relationship to a more sustainable and integrated partnership. By fostering a local defense industry, the U.S. helps make the AFP’s modernization more affordable and resilient, while also creating a distributed industrial network in a critical region, providing a strategic hedge against supply chain disruptions in a crisis.

IV. Fortifying the Archipelago: The Acceleration of EDCA

The physical manifestation of the revitalized U.S.-Philippine alliance is most evident in the accelerated implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). Signed in 2014, the agreement allows for the rotational presence of U.S. forces and the prepositioning of defense materiel at agreed-upon locations within Philippine military bases.31 After years of slow progress, 2025 has seen a concerted effort to develop these sites, transforming them from notional locations into functional hubs for combined operations, logistics, and humanitarian response.

Strategic Basing and Access: The Nine EDCA Sites

The EDCA framework currently encompasses nine sites, strategically distributed throughout the archipelago to address a range of contingencies.31 These include the five original locations agreed upon in 2016 and four additional sites announced in 2023:

  • Original Sites: Cesar Basa Air Base (Pampanga), Fort Magsaysay (Nueva Ecija), Antonio Bautista Air Base (Palawan), Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base (Cebu), and Lumbia Air Base (Cagayan de Oro).31
  • New Sites: Naval Base Camilo Osias (Santa Ana, Cagayan), Lal-lo Airport (Lal-lo, Cagayan), Camp Melchor Dela Cruz (Gamu, Isabela), and Balabac Island (Palawan).31

The geographic placement of these sites is deliberate and strategically significant. The three new sites in Northern Luzon (Camilo Osias, Lal-lo, and Dela Cruz) provide critical access to the Luzon Strait, a vital chokepoint for any potential conflict involving Taiwan.31 The sites in Palawan (Antonio Bautista and Balabac Island) are directly oriented toward the South China Sea, serving as forward staging areas for maritime security and domain awareness operations.3

2025 Infrastructure Developments

The year 2025 has been marked by an acceleration of infrastructure projects at these sites, backed by increased U.S. funding. The U.S. has committed to expanding its investment on top of the initial $82 million allocated for the first five sites, with the President’s FY2025 budget request including an additional $128 million for EDCA projects.33 This funding is being translated into tangible construction designed to support the specific operational needs of the alliance.

In Palawan, the U.S. announced plans in July to fund and construct a new fast boat base on the province’s western coast in the municipality of Quezon.3 This facility, strategically located just 160 miles from the contested Second Thomas Shoal, is designed to support rigid-hulled inflatable boats (RHIBs) and assault boats, enabling rapid deployment into the Spratly Islands.3 This directly addresses the CADC’s requirement for enhanced littoral combat capabilities. Additionally, upgrades are underway at Naval Detachment Oyster Bay, including a new boat repair facility equipped to service both manned and unmanned surface vessels.3

In Northern Luzon, the Philippines is seeking U.S. assistance for critical upgrades at the new sites. Planned projects include the construction of a new pier and repairs to the airstrip at Naval Base Camilo Osias, as well as the construction of a fuel storage facility and a command center at Lal-lo Airport.36 These improvements will enhance the ability of U.S. and Philippine forces to conduct sustained air and maritime operations in and around the Luzon Strait.

From Logistics Hubs to Power Projection Platforms

The function of the EDCA sites has demonstrably evolved in 2025. While their official purpose remains to support rotational access and prepositioning of equipment, their practical application has expanded, proving their value in both peacetime and as a foundation for contingency operations.

A prime example of this was the activation of all nine EDCA sites in July 2025 to serve as hubs for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response (HADR) efforts during severe monsoon rains and flooding.32 This was not a theoretical exercise but a real-world operation. Prepositioned supplies funded by the U.S., such as 2,500 tarps stored at Fort Magsaysay, were distributed to affected communities, and fuel stored at Lal-lo Airport was used to support U.S. Marine Corps MV-22B Ospreys flying relief missions to the remote Batanes islands.39

This HADR activation served a crucial dual purpose. First, it provided tangible, life-saving benefits to the Filipino people, generating significant domestic goodwill and creating a powerful positive narrative that counters criticism of the U.S. presence.38 Second, it served as a real-world stress test of the logistical network underpinning the EDCA concept. The process of coordinating U.S. and Philippine assets and moving supplies from these strategic locations exercised the exact same command, control, and logistical functions that would be essential in a military conflict. The HADR mission was, in effect, a full-scale “dress rehearsal” for conflict logistics, conducted under a politically palatable and humanitarian justification, which enhanced both alliance readiness and public acceptance.

Furthermore, the specific infrastructure projects initiated in 2025 are not generic but are precisely tailored to support the Philippines’ CADC. The fast boat base in Palawan and the pier and airfield upgrades in Northern Luzon directly enable the AFP to better project power into its own maritime zones, demonstrating a highly responsive and integrated approach to alliance planning and investment.3


Table 3: Status of Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) Sites (2025)

Site NameLocation (Province)Strategic SignificanceKey 2025 U.S.-Funded Projects / Activities
Cesar Basa Air BasePampangaMain fighter base for PAF; hub for air defense operations over Luzon and SCS.Continued upgrades to runway and facilities; largest recipient of initial EDCA funding.42
Fort MagsaysayNueva EcijaAFP’s largest military reservation; primary site for large-scale joint training like Balikatan.Activated as HADR hub; 2,500 prepositioned tarps distributed during July monsoon relief.39
Antonio Bautista Air BasePalawanKey AFP base for air and maritime patrols over the West Philippine Sea.Serves as a staging point for operations in the Spratly Islands.31
Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air BaseCebuStrategic logistics and mobility hub in the central Philippines.Ongoing projects from previous funding allocations.31
Lumbia Air BaseCagayan de OroLogistics and air mobility hub for Mindanao and the Sulu Sea.Ongoing projects from previous funding allocations.31
Naval Base Camilo OsiasCagayanNorthernmost EDCA site; provides access for maritime control of the Luzon Strait.Proposed projects include pier construction and airstrip repairs.36
Lal-lo AirportCagayanAirfield in Northern Luzon, crucial for air operations and logistics in a Taiwan contingency.Activated as HADR hub; prepositioned fuel used for U.S. Osprey relief flights to Batanes.41
Camp Melchor Dela CruzIsabelaMajor army base in Northern Luzon; staging area for ground forces.Designated for future development projects.31
Balabac IslandPalawanSouthernmost Palawan site; enhances monitoring and response capabilities in the southern SCS.New fast boat base to be constructed on Palawan’s western coast nearby; new boat repair facility at Oyster Bay.3

V. Securing the Digital and Intelligence Domains

Beyond the visible enhancements in hardware and infrastructure, 2025 has been a pivotal year for strengthening the less tangible, yet critically important, foundations of the U.S.-Philippine alliance: intelligence sharing and cybersecurity. The initiatives launched this year are creating an integrated “nervous system” for the alliance, enabling the secure, rapid exchange of information necessary for true combined operations in the modern era.

Operationalizing GSOMIA: The Transformation of U.S.-Philippine Intelligence Sharing

A cornerstone of this transformation is the operationalization of the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA). Signed in late 2024, this legally binding accord came into effect in 2025, establishing a standardized framework for the two countries to handle and protect classified military information.44

Prior to GSOMIA, the exchange of sensitive intelligence was often ad-hoc, slow, and procedurally complex. The agreement provides a robust legal and procedural backbone that allows for a smoother, more frequent, and more secure flow of classified data.44 The impact of this is profound. It is the essential prerequisite that enables the U.S. to share higher-level intelligence, such as real-time data from satellite and unmanned surveillance platforms, which is critical for building maritime domain awareness in the West Philippine Sea.45 Furthermore, GSOMIA is a key enabler for the transfer of advanced U.S. weapons systems, like the F-16, which involve sensitive, proprietary technology that requires stringent security protocols.45 Without the assurances provided by GSOMIA, the level of materiel and operational cooperation seen in 2025 would not be possible.

The New Frontier: The Bilateral Cybersecurity Campaign

Recognizing that any future conflict will be fought across all domains, Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Teodoro announced the launch of a new bilateral cybersecurity campaign during their March meeting.5 This initiative acknowledges that digital infrastructure is both a critical enabler and a key vulnerability. The campaign is structured around three primary lines of effort:

  1. Establishing a secure defense network for reliable communication.
  2. Developing a capable and skilled cybersecurity workforce within the AFP.
  3. Enabling advanced operational cooperation in the cyber domain.5

This campaign was immediately put into practice during Exercise Balikatan 25, which for the first time featured a comprehensive Cyber Defense Exercise (CYDEX).48 Held at Camp Aguinaldo, the CYDEX challenged joint U.S.-Philippine teams to defend simulated critical national infrastructure, such as telecommunications and healthcare systems, against realistic cyberattacks launched from remote locations.48 This hands-on training allowed participants to exchange tactics, techniques, and procedures, building not only technical skills but also the trust and procedural interoperability needed to jointly respond to a major cyber incident—which could very well be the first shot fired in a future crisis.48

Building a Common Operating Picture

To translate shared intelligence into coordinated action, the alliance requires a physical nexus for planning and operations. To this end, U.S. and Philippine officials broke ground on a new Combined Coordination Center (CCC) at Camp Aguinaldo in Manila.44 Scheduled to open in the fall of 2025, the CCC will provide a dedicated, secure facility where U.S. and Philippine military personnel can work side-by-side.44 The center will be equipped with both classified and unclassified information feeds, allowing planners to fuse intelligence from multiple sources, develop a shared common operating picture, and coordinate responses to regional challenges, particularly in the South China Sea.44

These advanced initiatives build upon a foundation of continued cooperation in the law enforcement and counter-terrorism spheres. The U.S. continues to provide support to the FBI-assisted Anti-Terrorism Task Force in the Philippines.49 In March 2025, the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) conducted a joint maritime security training workshop in Manila focused on countering the trafficking of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) materials through seaports, involving a wide range of Philippine agencies including the Coast Guard, Navy, and Bureau of Customs.50

Together, these three pillars—the GSOMIA legal framework, the cybersecurity campaign, and the physical CCC—form a cohesive architecture. GSOMIA allows the data to flow, the cyber initiatives protect the digital pathways, and the CCC provides the human-machine interface to analyze that data and direct a coordinated response. This represents a quantum leap in the alliance’s C2 capabilities, a force multiplier more significant than any single weapons platform.

VI. Strategic Assessment and Forward Outlook

The year-to-date activities in 2025 have fundamentally reshaped the U.S.-Philippine alliance, accelerating its modernization at a pace not seen in decades. The confluence of policy affirmations, advanced military exercises, significant materiel support, infrastructure development, and foundational intelligence agreements has substantially enhanced the alliance’s posture. This final section provides a strategic assessment of this progress and identifies key challenges and recommendations for sustaining this momentum.

Gauging Success: Progress in Establishing Credible Deterrence

The cumulative effect of the initiatives undertaken in 2025 has been a marked increase in the credibility of the U.S.-Philippine alliance and its collective deterrent posture. The strategic ambiguity that once clouded the application of the Mutual Defense Treaty has been significantly reduced, particularly with its explicit extension to the Philippine Coast Guard.5 This policy clarity, backed by tangible capability enhancements, presents a more complicated and costly proposition for any potential aggressor.

The alliance is clearly shifting toward a strategy of “deterrence by denial.” This approach seeks not to match an adversary symmetrically but to field capabilities that can deny an aggressor its objectives or make the cost of achieving them prohibitively high. The deployment of the mobile, land-based NMESIS anti-ship missile system during Balikatan is a textbook example of this strategy in action.8 By distributing such systems across the Philippine archipelago, enabled by the network of EDCA sites, the alliance can threaten to contest key sea lanes and littoral areas, thereby deterring an attack by making its success uncertain and its potential losses unacceptable. The proposed F-16 sale, the focus on unmanned systems, and the hardening of the EDCA sites are all mutually reinforcing components of this denial-focused defense posture.

Challenges and Vulnerabilities

Despite the significant progress, several challenges must be managed to ensure the long-term success and sustainability of this strategic acceleration.

  1. Pacing and Absorption Capacity: The AFP is being asked to absorb a tremendous amount of new technology, doctrine, and training in a very short period. High-end platforms like the F-16 require a massive, multi-year investment in pilot training, maintenance infrastructure, and logistical support.22 The United States must carefully pace its provision of advanced capabilities to align with the AFP’s ability to effectively operate, maintain, and integrate them. Rushing this process could lead to “hollow” capabilities that look impressive on paper but lack the human capital and logistical tail to be effective in a crisis.
  2. Political Sustainability: The current alignment between the Marcos administration and Washington is exceptionally strong. However, U.S. policy must be insulated from the vagaries of domestic Philippine politics to ensure the durability of these initiatives. Building broad-based institutional and public support for the alliance is critical. The successful use of EDCA sites for HADR missions is a powerful tool in this regard, as it demonstrates the alliance’s direct benefit to the Filipino people beyond abstract security concerns.38
  3. Economic Constraints: While the Philippines has committed to a significant military modernization budget, its economic realities differ from those of other key U.S. allies in the region, such as Japan or Australia.1 The long-term lifecycle costs of operating and sustaining sophisticated systems like the F-16 fleet will be a persistent challenge. Without a sustainable funding model, these new assets risk becoming an operational and financial burden. This underscores the strategic importance of the defense industrial cooperation initiative, which aims to lower long-term costs and build a more self-reliant defense posture.27

Recommendations for Sustaining Momentum into 2026

To build upon the successes of 2025 and mitigate the identified challenges, the United States should pursue the following lines of effort:

  • Prioritize and Expedite EDCA Execution: The nine EDCA sites are the physical bedrock of the alliance’s modernized posture. The U.S. Department of Defense should work with Congress to ensure consistent and accelerated funding for infrastructure projects at all sites. The timely completion of key projects, such as the fast boat base in Palawan and the airfield and port upgrades in Northern Luzon, should be a top priority, with a goal of having them substantially complete by the end of 2026.1
  • Deepen Defense Industrial Cooperation: The alliance must move swiftly from the Joint Vision Statement to tangible pilot projects. The U.S. should facilitate partnerships between American and Philippine firms for the co-production of high-priority, lower-complexity items such as unmanned systems, ammunition, or small watercraft. Success in this area is essential for the long-term sustainability of AFP modernization and for building deeper political and economic buy-in for the alliance within the Philippines.
  • Institutionalize Multilateral Security Cooperation: The participation of Japan and Australia in major exercises and maritime patrols should become the rule, not the exception. The U.S. should work to regularize trilateral and quadrilateral activities, creating a persistent, combined presence in the South China Sea. This normalizes a broader international commitment to the rule of law and distributes the burden of presence patrols.
  • Expand Professional Military Education (PME): Hardware is only as good as the personnel who operate it. The U.S. should significantly increase the number of training slots for AFP officers at U.S. PME institutions, such as war colleges and command and staff schools.1 This investment in human capital is crucial for developing the next generation of Filipino strategic thinkers and alliance managers who can effectively employ the new capabilities being acquired.
  • Plan for the 2026 Mutual Defense Board-Security Engagement Board (MDB-SEB): The annual MDB-SEB meetings are the primary venue for planning future alliance activities.2 Planning for the 2026 iteration should begin now, with an emphasis on building upon the complexity of Balikatan 25 and introducing even more integrated, multi-domain scenarios to ensure the strategic acceleration of the alliance continues unabated.

Image Source

Poto by U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Madelyn Keech. Image obtained from Wikimedia on 9/21/2025. Description: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signs the Filipino Department of National Defense guest book at Camp Aguinaldo, Philippines, March 28, 2025. (DOD photo). Note, that is Filipino Secretary of National Defense Gilbert Teodoro watching SecDef Hegseth sign.



If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Sources cited

  1. Next Steps for the U.S.–Philippine Alliance | The Heritage Foundation, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/next-steps-the-us-philippine-alliance
  2. U.S., Philippine Forces to Hold 500 Military Exercises in 2026 – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2025/08/22/u-s-philippine-forces-to-hold-500-military-exercises-in-2026
  3. U.S.-Philippines Military Cooperation: Fast Boat Bases and Unmanned Systems Contribute to South China Sea Strategy – Second Line of Defense – SLDinfo.com, accessed September 21, 2025, https://sldinfo.com/2025/07/u-s-philippines-military-cooperation-fast-boat-bases-and-unmanned-systems-contribute-to-south-china-sea-strategy/
  4. Chinese Warships Shadow US and Allies in South China Sea: Official – Newsweek, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/china-warships-shadow-us-allies-navy-exercise-south-china-sea-2124260
  5. United States–Philippines Joint Statement on Secretary Hegseth’s …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4137869/united-statesphilippines-joint-statement-on-secretary-hegseths-inaugural-visit/
  6. Strategic De-Escalation in the South China Sea – Richard Javad Heydarian, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/strategic-de-escalation-in-the-south-china-sea
  7. Balikatan Exercise 2025: A Full Battle Test | Taiwan Talks – YouTube, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuujJg9Tu80
  8. Philippines, U.S. conclude Exercise Balikatan 25 – PACOM, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/NEWS/News-Article-View/Article/4180743/philippines-us-conclude-exercise-balikatan-25/
  9. Philippine, U.S. Troops Kick off Exercise Balikatan 2025 > United …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/4156181/philippine-us-troops-kick-off-exercise-balikatan-2025/
  10. About Balikatan Exercise between United States and Philippines, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/exercise-balikatan-2025
  11. Philippines, U.S. conclude Exercise Balikatan 25 – U.S. Pacific Fleet, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Newsroom/News/Article/4181821/philippines-us-conclude-exercise-balikatan-25/
  12. Philippine, U.S. Hold First 2025 Joint Patrol in South China Sea – Naval News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/philippine-u-s-hold-first-2025-joint-patrol-in-south-china-sea/
  13. Philippines First Joint Maritime Patrol as China Continues its Intrusion in West PH Sea, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va3zsGJO8ps
  14. Philippines, U.S. Partner in Maritime Cooperative Activity in South China Sea – Navy.mil, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/4033900/philippines-us-partner-in-maritime-cooperative-activity-in-south-china-sea/
  15. Philippines, U.S. highlight freedom of navigation with South China Sea joint air patrol, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ipdefenseforum.com/2025/03/philippines-u-s-highlight-freedom-of-navigation-with-south-china-sea-joint-air-patrol/
  16. Japan, the Philippines and the U.S. Conduct Maritime Cooperative …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/display-news/Article/4303807/japan-the-philippines-and-the-us-conduct-maritime-cooperative-activity/
  17. PH, US, Japan hold fresh naval drills in West Philippine Sea, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1258670
  18. China holds drills as Philippines, US conduct exercise in South China Sea – Radio Free Asia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.rfa.org/english/southchinasea/2025/01/20/china-philippines-us-exercises/
  19. LOOK: MAJOR US WEAPONS ARRIVE IN PHILIPPINES FOR BALIKATAN 2025! – YouTube, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvEATIs_E4M
  20. Major Arms Sales – Defense Security Cooperation Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales?Category=24979&Page=2
  21. F-16 aircraft – Major Arms Sales | Defense Security Cooperation Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales/Tag/229718/f-16-aircraft
  22. Philippines – F-16 Aircraft – Defense Security Cooperation Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales/Article-Display/Article/4142323/philippines-f-16-aircraft
  23. Philippines set to augment burgeoning arsenal with 20 F-16 fighter jets, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ipdefenseforum.com/2025/04/philippines-set-to-augment-burgeoning-arsenal-with-20-f-16-fighter-jets/
  24. Philippines – Major Arms Sales | Defense Security Cooperation Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales/Tag/45735/philippines
  25. Philippines – TH-73A Training Helicopters and Support, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales/Article-Display/Article/4155316/philippines-th-73a-training-helicopters-and-support
  26. Philippines – TH-73A Training Helicopters and Support, accessed September 21, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Apr/15/2003689492/-1/-1/1/PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20PHILIPPINES%2025-20%20CN.PDF
  27. Joint Vision Statement on U.S.-Philippine Defense Industrial Cooperation – DoD, accessed September 21, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Mar/28/2003677420/-1/-1/1/JOINT-VISION-STATEMENT-ON-U.S.-PHILIPPINE-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-COOPERATION.PDF
  28. Aerospace, Defense, and Security (ADS) Mission to the Philippines August 14-15, 2025 in Manila – International Trade Administration, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.trade.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/Philippines%20ADS%20Mission%20Invitation.pdf
  29. US-ASEAN Business Council Concludes Largest-Ever Aerospace, Defense, & Security Mission to the Philippines, accessed September 21, 2025, https://press.usasean.org/us-asean-business-council-concludes-largest-ever-aerospace-defense–security-mission-to-the-philippines
  30. US defense, security firms exploring business prospects in PH – Philippine News Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1256731
  31. Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Defense_Cooperation_Agreement
  32. EDCA sites to be used for disaster relief – AFP chief – Philippine News Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1254818
  33. Philippines, U.S. Announce Locations of Four New EDCA Sites – PACOM, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/NEWS/Article/3350502/philippines-us-announce-locations-of-four-new-edca-sites/
  34. Joint Statement on the Philippines-United States Fourth 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, accessed September 21, 2025, https://2021-2025.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-philippines-united-states-fourth-22-ministerial-dialogue/
  35. Accelerated US preparations to use the Philippines as base for imperialist war – PRWC, accessed September 21, 2025, https://philippinerevolution.nu/2025/07/21/accelerated-us-preparations-to-use-the-philippines-as-base-for-imperialist-war/
  36. More Than Meets the Eye: Philippine Upgrades at EDCA Sites | Asia …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://amti.csis.org/more-than-meets-the-eye-philippine-upgrades-at-edca-sites/
  37. What’s next for the US-Philippines basing agreement? – Defense News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2024/02/05/whats-next-for-the-us-philippines-basing-agreement/
  38. All EDCA sites ‘activated’ for use in relief efforts amid monsoon rains | Philstar.com, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/07/22/2459861/all-edca-sites-activated-use-relief-efforts-amid-monsoon-rains
  39. EDCA sites activated for delivery of relief goods—US envoy – Manila Bulletin, accessed September 21, 2025, https://mb.com.ph/2025/08/03/edca-sites-used-for-delivery-of-relief-goods-to-flood-typhoon-victims
  40. EDCA sites activated as relief hubs amid Crising, Habagat | GMA News Online, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/953372/edca-sites-activated-as-relief-hubs-amid-crising-habagat/story/
  41. Philippine, U.S. armed forces jointly aid thousands affected by severe weather, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ipdefenseforum.com/2025/08/philippine-u-s-armed-forces-jointly-aid-thousands-affected-by-severe-weather/
  42. U.S., Philippines Complete Largest EDCA Project to Date – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2023/11/06/u-s-philippines-complete-largest-edca-project-to-date
  43. PBBM transforms, reinvigorates PH-US alliance through EDCA, accessed September 21, 2025, https://pia.gov.ph/pbbm-transforms-reinvigorates-ph-us-alliance-through-edca/
  44. US, Philippines expand classified intel-sharing | DefenseScoop, accessed September 21, 2025, https://defensescoop.com/2024/11/18/us-philippines-expand-tech-cooperation-classified-intel-sharing/
  45. Philippines, U.S. sign pact to secure shared military intelligence and weapons technology, accessed September 21, 2025, https://sentry-magazine.com/philippines-u-s-sign-pact-to-secure-shared-military-intelligence-and-weapons-technology/
  46. PH, US armed forces agree to secure military intel sharing – Philippine Information Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://pia.gov.ph/ph-us-armed-forces-agree-to-secure-military-intel-sharing/
  47. US signs long-sought intelligence sharing deal with the Philippines – Defense News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/11/18/us-signs-long-sought-intelligence-sharing-deal-with-the-philippines/
  48. Balikatan 25: Strengthening Cyber Security Ties with the Philippines …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/NEWS/News-Article-View/Article/4179489/balikatan-25-strengthening-cyber-security-ties-with-the-philippines/
  49. Criminal Division | Asia and the Pacific Region – Department of Justice, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-opdat/worldwide-activities/asia
  50. U.S., Philippines Conduct Joint Training on Anti-Trafficking of …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ph.usembassy.gov/u-s-philippines-conduct-joint-training-on-anti-trafficking-of-hazardous-materials-in-seaports/

The EDCA Network: Revitalizing the U.S.-Philippines Alliance for a New Strategic Era

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the United States and the Philippines, after nearly a decade of fluctuating progress, has been revitalized and expanded, representing a fundamental strategic realignment of the bilateral alliance. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the nine designated EDCA sites, the operational activities that bring them to life, and the critical role of non-EDCA locations like Subic Bay and Clark. The central finding is that the EDCA network has evolved from an initial concept focused on counter-terrorism and humanitarian assistance into a cornerstone of an integrated deterrence posture aimed at addressing state-level security challenges in the Indo-Pacific.

The nine EDCA sites are now strategically positioned across the Philippine archipelago. The original five locations, established in 2016, provide a dispersed footprint for logistics and training. The four additional sites, announced in 2023, are geographically concentrated in Northern Luzon and Palawan, directly addressing potential contingencies in the Luzon Strait and the South China Sea. Concurrently, the former U.S. military strongholds of Subic Bay and Clark are being re-established as central logistics, maintenance, and power-projection hubs through a symbiotic mix of military initiatives and private-sector investment.

This physical infrastructure is being operationalized through an increasing tempo of large-scale, complex, and often multilateral military exercises. These joint activities serve as the primary mechanism for enhancing interoperability, testing new capabilities, and signaling the alliance’s collective resolve. The EDCA network, therefore, is not merely a collection of facilities but an active and evolving ecosystem designed to bolster Philippine defense modernization and provide the United States with a resilient, distributed, and strategically vital foothold in a contested region.

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement: Strategic Context and Evolution

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement is not a standalone treaty but the latest evolution in a multi-layered defense relationship between the United States and the Philippines, built upon decades of security cooperation. Its legal and political legitimacy is anchored in two foundational pacts: the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), which commits both nations to defend each other in the event of an external attack, and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which provides the legal framework for the presence of U.S. troops in the Philippines.1

Signed on April 28, 2014, EDCA supplements these earlier agreements by granting U.S. forces rotational access to designated Philippine military bases, referred to as “Agreed Locations”.1 The agreement’s core tenets permit the United States to conduct joint training, construct and operate facilities for mutual use, and preposition defense equipment, supplies, and materiel.1 Critically, EDCA explicitly prohibits the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases, and the Philippines retains ownership and sovereignty over all Agreed Locations—a politically crucial distinction that addresses historical sensitivities surrounding foreign military presence.1 The agreement has an initial term of ten years and continues automatically unless terminated by either party with one year’s written notice.1

A Decade of Fluctuation: From Stagnation to Revival

The implementation of EDCA has served as a direct barometer of the political and strategic alignment between Manila and Washington. The agreement was originally conceived under the administration of President Benigno Aquino III as a direct strategic response to China’s seizure of the Scarborough Shoal in 2012, an event that exposed the Philippines’ vulnerability to external coercion and prompted a rethinking of its defense posture.5

However, the election of President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016 ushered in a period of strategic ambiguity and near-stagnation for the agreement. President Duterte’s pivot towards China and open disdain for the United States effectively froze significant progress on EDCA projects for six years.1 This period was marked by political turbulence that nearly resulted in the abrogation of the VFA, which would have rendered EDCA inoperable.6

A dramatic reversal occurred with the 2022 election of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Facing escalating maritime pressure from China, the Marcos administration has “breathed new life” into the alliance, bringing Manila and Washington closer than they have been in a generation.5 This rapprochement was solidified by unequivocal statements from U.S. officials confirming that the MDT’s mutual defense obligations apply to attacks on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the South China Sea—a clarification that had been intentionally vague for decades.6 This renewed political will has led to an immediate and rapid acceleration of EDCA projects and the landmark expansion of the agreement in 2023.5

The Strategic Pivot: From HADR to Integrated Deterrence

The publicly stated purpose of EDCA has evolved in lockstep with the changing geopolitical landscape. Initially, the agreement was framed primarily around goals of promoting regional peace, enhancing military interoperability, and, most visibly, enabling a more rapid response to the frequent natural disasters that strike the region.1 The groundbreaking for the very first major EDCA project—a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) warehouse at Basa Air Base in 2018—underscored this official narrative.7

While HADR remains a key component, the 2023 expansion and the nature of recent infrastructure projects and military exercises reveal a clear and decisive strategic pivot. The consistent emphasis on HADR in official communications serves a dual purpose. It provides a politically palatable justification for infrastructure development that assuages domestic concerns about sovereignty and avoids direct provocation of regional actors.8 At the same time, this “soft” mission provides cover for the construction of “hard” military infrastructure. Facilities such as rehabilitated runways capable of handling heavy lift aircraft, expanded fuel storage, and integrated command-and-control centers are fundamentally dual-use, optimized for both disaster response and high-end military contingencies.11 This allows the alliance to build tangible capacity for conflict under a less escalatory banner. The focus has now broadened to territorial defense, maritime security, and deterring coercion, aligning with the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy of dispersing forces across a wider geographic area to create a more resilient, responsive, and lethal posture.5

The EDCA Network: A Comprehensive Overview of Agreed Locations

The EDCA network currently comprises nine Agreed Locations, established in two distinct phases. The first tranche of five sites was agreed upon in March 2016, providing a geographically dispersed footprint across the archipelago that reflected the initial multi-purpose goals of counter-terrorism, maritime security, and disaster relief.1 The second tranche of four sites, announced in April 2023, represents a deliberate strategic concentration in Northern Luzon and the southern province of Palawan, signaling the alliance’s pivot toward territorial defense and regional contingency planning.1

The following table provides a consolidated list of all nine designated EDCA sites.

Table 1: Location of Designated EDCA Sites

Base NameCity / MunicipalityProvince
Original Five (2016)
Antonio Bautista Air BasePuerto PrincesaPalawan
Cesar Basa Air BaseFloridablancaPampanga
Fort MagsaysayPalayan City / Santa RosaNueva Ecija
Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air BaseLapu-Lapu CityCebu
Lumbia AirfieldCagayan de OroMisamis Oriental
Additional Four (2023)
Balabac Island (Naval Station Narciso Del Rosario)BalabacPalawan
Camp Melchor F. dela CruzGamuIsabela
Lal-lo Airport (Cagayan North Int’l Airport)Lal-loCagayan
Naval Base Camilo OsiasSanta AnaCagayan

Operational Tempo: Joint Military Exercises and Activities

The physical infrastructure being developed at the EDCA sites represents the “hardware” of the alliance’s revitalized strategy. The “software” that activates this network is a robust and expanding schedule of joint military exercises. These exercises are the primary vehicle for enhancing interoperability, testing logistics and command-and-control from the Agreed Locations, and signaling collective resolve to allies and potential adversaries alike.1 The immediate use of newly designated sites during major exercises demonstrates that they are not merely being developed for future contingencies but are being actively integrated into operational plans in real-time. This process effectively beta-tests the strategic concept, allowing both militaries to refine tactics and procedures and transform static infrastructure into a cohesive, functional military network.

Key recurring exercises include:

  • Balikatan (“Shoulder-to-Shoulder”): The premier and largest annual bilateral exercise, Balikatan involves thousands of troops conducting complex missions across maritime, land, air, and cyber domains. Recent iterations have focused on maritime security, air and missile defense, amphibious operations, and dynamic missile strikes, with growing participation from allies like Australia and France.12
  • Salaknib: An annual exercise between the U.S. Army and the Philippine Army, Salaknib is designed to enhance land power capacity and interoperability. It is increasingly used as a venue to deploy and test advanced U.S. Army systems, including the Mid-Range Capability (MRC) missile system and the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center-Exportable (JPMRC-X) training package.15
  • Sama Sama (“Together”): A multilateral maritime exercise hosted by the Philippines and the U.S., Sama Sama focuses on enhancing naval cooperation with partners such as Japan, Canada, France, and Australia. Drills typically occur in the vicinity of Subic Bay and cover the full spectrum of naval warfare, including anti-submarine, anti-surface, and anti-air operations.18
  • Other Specialized Exercises: A host of other exercises, such as Cope Thunder (air combat), Marine Aviation Support Activity (MASA), and Alon (with Australia), provide specialized training opportunities that further deepen integration between the allied forces.21

The following table details recent and upcoming military exercises held at EDCA sites and other key strategic locations.

Table 2: Military Exercises at EDCA Sites and Key Locations (2024-2025)

LocationExercise NameDates (2024-2025)Nature of Military Exercises and Activities
Fort Magsaysay, Nueva EcijaSalaknib 24Apr 8 – Jun 10, 2024Opening ceremony; Live-fire exercises (HIMARS, blank/live rounds); Deployment of Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center-Exportable (JPMRC-X) for jungle combat training center development. 10
Balikatan 24Apr 22 – May 10, 2024Central basing location for the exercise, specifically hosting jungle training components. 4
Lal-lo Airport, CagayanBalikatan 24Apr 27 – May 9, 2024Staging for air assault missions into northern islands (Batanes); Fly-away Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) operations; Utilized by C-130, CH-47, UH-60 aircraft; Firefighting technique lectures. 4
Balikatan 25April 2025Engineering activities (multipurpose gymnasium construction); Simulated runway repair and recovery operations. 22
Naval Base Camilo Osias, CagayanBalikatan 24Apr 22 – May 9, 2024Utilized as a major event site for the exercise, testing its strategic effectiveness for territorial defense. 4
Balabac Island, PalawanBalikatan 24Apr 22 – May 9, 2024Utilized as a major event site, testing strategic effectiveness for territorial defense in proximity to the South China Sea. 4
Antonio Bautista AB, PalawanExercise Alon 25Aug 15 – 29, 2025Headquarters for Joint Task Force 661; Establishment of a Combined Fusion Centre with AFP Western Command. 4
Dynamic Force EmploymentDec 9 – 13, 2024Bilateral training featuring USAF A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and C-130 Hercules aircraft to enhance regional security and interoperability. 4
Basa Air Base, PampangaMASA 24June 13 – 21, 2024Inaugural landing of USAF F-22 Raptors; Integrated tactical flights with PAF FA-50s; Subject Matter Expert Exchanges on low-level tactical flying. 21
Balikatan 24May 5, 2024Humanitarian Civic Assistance: Joint US-PH Air Force school clean-up project at Basa Air Base National High School. 28
Mactan-Benito Ebuen AB, CebuDynamic Force EmploymentAug 9, 2024Refueling of USAF F-22A Raptors; Knowledge exchange involving USAF C-130J Super Hercules. 4
Clark Air Base, Pampanga (Non-EDCA)Cope Thunder 25-2July 7 – 19, 2025First-ever deployment of USAF F-35A Lightning IIs to the Philippines; Joint patrols over the West Philippine Sea; Drills focused on Northern Luzon. 22
Dynamic Force EmploymentDec 9 – 13, 2024Integrated training with USAF A-10s and PAF assets to enhance interoperability. 31
Subic Bay, Zambales (Non-EDCA)Sama Sama 24Oct 7 – 18, 2024Multilateral maritime exercise with US, PH, Australia, Canada, France, Japan. Focus on anti-submarine, surface, and air warfare; Refueling-at-sea training; CBRN defense, TCCC, and communications drills. 18
KAMANDAG 9June 11, 2025Security drills involving US and Philippine Marines at Oyster Bay. 39
Northern Luzon (General)Salaknib 24April 7 – 11, 2024Historic first deployment of the U.S. Army’s Mid-Range Capability (MRC) missile system to enhance Philippine maritime defense capabilities. 16

Deep Dive—The Original Five Sites (Announced 2016)

The initial five EDCA sites provide a foundational network across the Philippines. While progress was slow for several years, development at these locations has accelerated since 2022. This process is not a unilateral U.S. endeavor; rather, U.S. investments are running in parallel with, and often catalyzing, the Philippines’ own long-term military modernization efforts. U.S. funding for specific, high-value projects like command-and-control centers complements larger, foundational investments by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in runway and hangar upgrades, accelerating the overall improvement of these bases for mutual benefit.2

Cesar Basa Air Base (Pampanga)

As the traditional home of the Philippine Air Force’s fighter wing, Basa Air Base in Floridablanca, Pampanga, has become the flagship location for EDCA infrastructure investment.40 It has received more U.S. funding than any other site, positioning it as a premier air hub for joint operations. Key projects include the first-ever EDCA project, a HADR warehouse inaugurated in 2019 1; a major $25 million runway rehabilitation completed in late 2023 to accommodate larger and heavier aircraft 11; and a new $32 million, 625,000-square-foot aircraft parking apron funded under the Pentagon’s Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI).42 This new apron will be able to host up to 20 U.S. aircraft, addressing a critical shortfall in parking space.42 The base hosted the historic first landing of U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors in the Philippines during Exercise MASA 24 and was inspected by the heads of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and the AFP in August 2024, underscoring its strategic importance.21

Fort Magsaysay (Nueva Ecija)

Fort Magsaysay is the largest military reservation in the Philippines and a primary training ground for the Philippine Army.45 It serves as a central staging area for major land-based exercises, including the jungle training components of Balikatan and the live-fire drills of Salaknib.4 The U.S. has allocated $11.4 million for EDCA projects at the base, including a HADR warehouse, command-and-control infrastructure, and urban combat training facilities.11 Satellite imagery from mid-2023 showed the HADR warehouse nearing completion.11 Future plans include the construction of an intermediate staging area for the U.S. Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force, a unit designed to operate long-range precision fires like HIMARS.47 The U.S. Army is also actively assisting in the improvement of the base’s live-fire ranges.4

Antonio Bautista Air Base (Palawan)

Located in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, Antonio Bautista Air Base is the EDCA site with the most strategic proximity to the contested Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.11 The U.S. has allocated approximately $1.8 million for projects including an ammunition warehouse, fuel storage, and command-and-control infrastructure.11 While U.S. investment has been modest, the AFP has undertaken significant upgrades independently since 2016, including runway resurfacing and the construction of new hangars and parking aprons.11 The base’s strategic value was highlighted during Exercise Alon 25, when it served as the headquarters for a joint task force and a combined fusion center, and again in late 2024 when it hosted U.S. Air Force A-10s for a Dynamic Force Employment exercise.23

Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base (Cebu)

Situated in Lapu-Lapu City, this air base is a critical logistics and air mobility hub for the central Philippines.50 It served as the center for HADR operations following the devastation of Super Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.11 The sole announced U.S.-funded EDCA project is a $2.7 million, 40,000-gallon fuel storage facility, which was scheduled for completion in late 2023.11 The base has also benefited significantly from major upgrades to the co-located Mactan-Cebu International Airport, including a second runway.11 The Philippine government has also funded its own projects, including a newly renovated hangar for C-130 aircraft turned over in September 2024 and another hangar for Black Hawk helicopters nearing completion.52 In August 2024, the base hosted U.S. F-22 Raptors for refueling during a joint training exercise.30

Lumbia Airfield (Cagayan de Oro)

Formerly the main civilian airport for Cagayan de Oro in Mindanao, Lumbia Airfield is now a key Philippine Air Force base for operations in the southern Philippines.53 U.S. EDCA projects include a $3.7 million allocation for a HADR warehouse and runway lighting improvements.11 The base has also seen major upgrades funded by the Philippines, including runway resurfacing, new hangars, and expanded parking aprons.11 A November 2024 inspection by the Philippine Secretary of National Defense confirmed that work was ongoing on the HADR warehouse, a new air traffic control tower, and runway repairs, all intended to enhance support for AFP missions and HADR operations in Mindanao.56

The Northern Luzon Pivot and Palawan’s Frontier: Analysis of the New Sites (Announced 2023)

The selection of the four new EDCA sites in April 2023 is the clearest physical evidence of the U.S.-Philippines alliance’s strategic realignment. The original five sites were geographically dispersed, reflecting a broad mission set that included internal security and nationwide disaster response. In stark contrast, the new sites are geographically concentrated in two critical theaters: Northern Luzon, which overlooks the Luzon Strait and Taiwan, and the southern approach to the Spratly Islands. This deliberate geographic clustering is not random; it is a map of the alliance’s updated threat assessment, directly corresponding to the primary areas of potential friction with China and transforming EDCA from a general cooperation agreement into a focused framework for integrated deterrence.

Naval Base Camilo Osias (Santa Ana, Cagayan)

Positioned at the northeastern tip of Luzon, this naval base offers strategic access to the Luzon Strait, a critical maritime chokepoint for global trade and a key theater in any potential Taiwan contingency.5 Its location is ideal for maritime domain awareness and sea lane control. The Philippines is seeking U.S. assistance to repair the base’s airstrip and construct a new pier, upgrades that would significantly enhance its operational capacity.60 The base’s strategic value was tested during Balikatan 24, where it served as a key staging area for territorial defense drills.4

Camp Melchor F. dela Cruz (Gamu, Isabela)

As the headquarters of the Philippine Army’s 5th Infantry Division, this large camp in Northern Luzon is positioned to support and sustain land-based operations across the region.62 While it was not utilized during Balikatan 24, it is slated for significant future development under EDCA.4 Planned U.S.-funded projects include warehouses for prepositioned assets, a helicopter landing pad, a joint training facility, and, most notably, a command-and-control fusion center designed to synchronize U.S.-Philippine operations during exercises and contingencies.47

Lal-lo Airport (Lal-lo, Cagayan)

This civilian airport, also known as Cagayan North International Airport, possesses a 2,100-meter runway capable of handling military transport aircraft and fighter jets.65 Its location in Northern Luzon makes it an invaluable logistical hub for projecting power into the Batanes Islands and the Luzon Strait.4 The airport has already proven its utility, serving as a critical staging base for air assault missions and as a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) during Balikatan 24.4 Future EDCA projects are expected to include a fuel storage facility and a command center.61

Balabac Island (Palawan)

Located at the southernmost tip of Palawan, Balabac directly overlooks the South China Sea and the strategic Balabac Strait, a key transit route between the South China Sea and the Sulu Sea.67 This makes it a critical outpost for monitoring the southern approaches to the Spratly Islands. The island is undergoing a major transformation, with Philippine-funded projects including a nearly complete 3-kilometer military runway and a new pier at Naval Station Narciso del Rosario.67 Future EDCA projects are set to include a HADR warehouse and barracks.68 The site’s strategic importance was validated through its use during Balikatan 24 exercises.4

Special Report: The Strategic Revival of Subic Bay and Clark Air Base

While not formally part of the EDCA network, the former U.S. military hubs of Subic Bay and Clark Air Base are experiencing a strategic revival that is indispensable to the broader U.S. force posture in the Philippines. A sophisticated, two-tiered basing architecture is emerging. The nine EDCA sites act as distributed, politically sensitive tactical nodes for forward operations and training. In parallel, Subic and Clark are being re-established as centralized, strategic-level logistical and industrial backbones. This approach leverages private-sector investment and commercial agreements to rebuild a capacity that would be politically difficult to achieve through a formal basing treaty, providing the alliance with both operational flexibility and strategic depth.

Subic Bay: The Re-emerging Logistics and Naval Hub

Once the largest U.S. overseas naval base, Subic Bay’s closure in 1992 was a landmark event in the post-Cold War drawdown.1 Today, it is undergoing a multi-faceted revitalization:

  • Industrial Revival: In a major strategic development, U.S. investment firm Cerberus Capital Management acquired the massive, defunct Hanjin shipyard. In partnership with South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries, the yard has been reopened as Agila Subic, reviving a world-class shipbuilding and repair facility in a critical location.71
  • Logistics and Prepositioning: In early 2025, the U.S. Marine Corps established its new Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Philippines (MCPP-P) by leasing a warehouse at the former Naval Supply Depot. This facility will stage non-lethal equipment such as vehicles and engineering assets for rapid deployment during HADR or other contingencies.72
  • Future Weapons Hub: The U.S. and the Philippines are advancing ambitious plans to establish a massive weapons manufacturing and logistics hub at Subic. This facility would produce essential materials for munitions, bolstering both Philippine self-reliance and U.S. regional readiness.70 The U.S. Navy is also seeking to lease a large, climate-controlled storage facility in the Subic-Clark corridor by 2026.72
  • Operational Staging Area: Subic Bay consistently serves as the primary venue for complex naval exercises like Sama Sama and hosts specialized units, including U.S. Naval Special Warfare, during training events.18

Clark Air Base: The Premier Air Power Staging Ground

Clark Air Base, formerly a pillar of U.S. air power in the Pacific, now operates as the Clark Freeport Zone.1 While it is not an EDCA site, its extensive, high-quality infrastructure makes it the preferred staging ground for advanced U.S. Air Force deployments. It has demonstrated its role as a key forward operating location by hosting the first-ever deployment of F-35A Lightning II fighters to the Philippines for Exercise Cope Thunder in 2025, as well as A-10 Thunderbolt IIs for Dynamic Force Employment exercises in 2024.22 This allows U.S. airpower to operate from a secure, well-equipped location with easy access to the region’s strategic airspaces.

Synthesis and Strategic Outlook

The revitalization of the U.S.-Philippines alliance, manifested through the expansion and operationalization of the EDCA network, marks a significant shift in the Indo-Pacific’s security architecture. The nine Agreed Locations, complemented by the resurgent strategic hubs at Subic Bay and Clark, form a comprehensive and layered defense network. This network is designed to achieve three interrelated goals: accelerate the modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, deepen bilateral military interoperability across all domains, and provide the United States with a distributed, resilient, and strategically located footprint for regional contingencies.

The future trajectory of the agreement points toward continued investment in infrastructure, particularly at the newer sites in Northern Luzon and Palawan, which are central to the alliance’s deterrence posture. The operational tempo is expected to increase, with joint exercises likely growing in scale, complexity, and multilateral participation.

The evolution of EDCA will remain a key barometer of the health of the U.S.-Philippines alliance and a central element in the region’s response to security challenges. The ultimate success of this strategic realignment will depend on sustained political will in both Manila and Washington and the ability to skillfully manage the complex geopolitical dynamics of the Indo-Pacific.



If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Sources cited

  1. Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Defense_Cooperation_Agreement
  2. U.S. Security Cooperation with the Philippines – United States Department of State, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-the-philippines
  3. DEFENSE Cooperation – State Department, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/14-625-Philippines-Defense-Cooperation.pdf
  4. US troops put new Philippine military sites to test in Balikatan drill, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/05/12/us-troops-put-new-philippine-military-sites-to-test-in-balikatan-drill/
  5. US-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement Revived – Foreign Policy Research Institute, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/06/us-philippines-enhanced-defense-cooperation-agreement-revived/
  6. The Transformation of the U.S.-Philippines Alliance – CSIS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/transformation-us-philippines-alliance
  7. Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement Groundbreaking Ceremony – PACOM, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/1495964/enhanced-defense-cooperation-agreement-groundbreaking-ceremony/
  8. New EDCA Sites Named in the Philippines – SAF/IA, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.safia.hq.af.mil/IA-News/Article/3357767/new-edca-sites-named-in-the-philippines/
  9. Philippines, U.S. Announce Locations of Four New EDCA Sites – PACOM, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/NEWS/Article/3350502/philippines-us-announce-locations-of-four-new-edca-sites/
  10. Palace identifies 4 new EDCA sites – Philstar.com, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/04/04/2256722/palace-identifies-4-new-edca-sites
  11. More Than Meets the Eye: Philippine Upgrades at EDCA Sites, accessed September 21, 2025, https://amti.csis.org/more-than-meets-the-eye-philippine-upgrades-at-edca-sites/
  12. Palace names four more Edca sites – News – Inquirer.net, accessed September 21, 2025, https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1751973/palace-names-four-new-localities-as-edca-sites
  13. Exercise Balikatan 2024 kicks off with opening ceremony highlighting ironclad alliance, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.marforpac.marines.mil/Media-Room/Pacific-Marines-Stories/Article/Article/3749906/exercise-balikatan-2024-kicks-off-with-opening-ceremony-highlighting-ironclad-a/
  14. Philippine, U.S. Troops to Kick Off Exercise Balikatan 2024, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ph.usembassy.gov/philippine-u-s-troops-to-kick-off-exercise-balikatan-2024/
  15. U.S. Army Pacific and Philippine Army Kick Off Salaknib 2024 – PACOM, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3737830/us-army-pacific-and-philippine-army-kick-off-salaknib-2024/
  16. US Army’s Mid-Range Capability makes its first deployment in the Philippines for Salaknib, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.usarpac.army.mil/Our-Story/Our-News/Article-Display/Article/3740807/us-armys-mid-range-capability-makes-its-first-deployment-in-the-philippines-for/
  17. The Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center deploys to Salaknib 2024 in Partnership with the Philippines Armed Forces | Article | The United States Army, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/276773/the_joint_pacific_multinational_readiness_center_deploys_to_salaknib_2024_in_partnership_with_the_philippines_armed_forces
  18. Philippine Navy and U.S. Navy commence Sama Sama 2024 > U.S. Pacific Fleet > News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Newsroom/News/Article/3928734/philippine-navy-and-us-navy-commence-sama-sama-2024/
  19. Canada, Philippines and U.S conduct a maneuvering exercise during Sama Sama 2024 [Image 4 of 4] – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8707111/canada-philippines-and-us-conduct-maneuvering-exercise-during-sama-sama-2024
  20. Military Sealift Command Far East Participates in Sama Sama – U.S. Pacific Fleet, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Newsroom/News/Article/3939802/military-sealift-command-far-east-participates-in-sama-sama/
  21. Hawaiian Raptors Land at Basa Air Base in Philippines – The National Guard, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article-View/Article/3836462/hawaiian-raptors-land-at-basa-air-base-in-philippines/
  22. U.S., Philippine Air Forces Kick off Aerial Combat Exercise – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2025/07/10/u-s-philippine-air-forces-kick-off-aerial-combat-exercise
  23. Exercise Alon 25 Underway | The Australian Naval Institute, accessed September 21, 2025, https://navalinstitute.com.au/exercise-alon-25-underway/
  24. Lal-lo Airport Site of Balikatan 2024 – Cagayan Economic Zone …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ceza.gov.ph/lal-lo-airport-site-of-balikatan-2024/
  25. Philippine, U.S. Troops Kick off Exercise Balikatan 2025 – Marines.mil, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/4156181/philippine-us-troops-kick-off-exercise-balikatan-2025/
  26. Strengthening Partnerships: U.S. and Philippine Air Forces Execute Dynamic Force Employment Training in the Philippines [Image 15 of 20] – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8793887/strengthening-partnerships-us-and-philippine-air-forces-execute-dynamic-force-employment-training-philippines
  27. Strengthening Partnerships: U.S. and Philippine Air Forces Execute Dynamic Force Employment Training in the Philippines [Image 9 of 20] – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8793853/strengthening-partnerships-us-and-philippine-air-forces-execute-dynamic-force-employment-training-philippines
  28. U.S. and Philippine Air Force Clean Up School Together in 2024 – YouTube, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ug9uRESBo
  29. U.S. F-22s Land at Mactan–Benito Ebuen Air Base, Philippines during DFE operations [Image 1 of 13] – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8585834/us-f-22s-land-mactan-benito-ebuen-air-base-philippines-during-dfe-operations
  30. U.S. F-22s Land at Mactan–Benito Ebuen Air Base, Philippines during DFE operations [Image 13 of 13] – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8585846/us-f-22s-land-mactan-benito-ebuen-air-base-philippines-during-dfe-operations
  31. A decades-long partnership continues: U.S. and Philippine Air Forces conduct DFE – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/video/947183/decades-long-partnership-continues-us-and-philippine-air-forces-conduct-dfe
  32. U.S. and Philippine Air Forces complete Dynamic Force Employment exercise – PACOM, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/4009141/us-and-philippine-air-forces-complete-dynamic-force-employment-exercise/
  33. Dynamic Force Employment exercise continues in the Philippines [Image 14 of 18] – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8800132/dynamic-force-employment-exercise-continues-philippines
  34. Dynamic Force Employment exercise continues in the Philippines [Image 10 of 18] – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8800113/dynamic-force-employment-exercise-continues-philippines
  35. Marine Rotational Force – Southeast Asia Begins Third Annual Deployment – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/news/482276/marine-rotational-force-southeast-asia-begins-third-annual-deployment
  36. Philippine Navy and U.S. Navy commence Sama Sama 2024 > United States Navy > News Stories, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3927885/philippine-navy-and-us-navy-commence-sama-sama-2024/
  37. Images – Exercise Sama Sama 2024 – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8681924/exercise-sama-sama-2024
  38. Video – Transfer of Knowledge: Sama Sama 2024 – DVIDS, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/video/940582/transfer-knowledge-sama-sama-2024
  39. U.S., Philippine Forces to Hold 500 Military Exercises in 2026 – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2025/08/22/u-s-philippine-forces-to-hold-500-military-exercises-in-2026
  40. Cesar Basa Air Base – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Basa_Air_Base
  41. PBBM transforms, reinvigorates PH-US alliance through EDCA, accessed September 21, 2025, https://pia.gov.ph/pbbm-transforms-reinvigorates-ph-us-alliance-through-edca/
  42. U.S. Funded Airport in the Philippines will Host MODERN Drones and Fighter Jets, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ubHTRDHFVg
  43. Philippine Air Base Gets U.S.-Funded Upgrade Under China Deterrence Plan – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2024/01/29/philippine-air-base-gets-u-s-funded-upgrade-under-china-deterrence-plan
  44. PH, US military officials inspect Basa Air Base – Philippine News Agency, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1232166
  45. Fort Magsaysay – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Magsaysay
  46. Fort Magsaysay – Wikiwand, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/map/Fort%20Magsaysay
  47. Gen. C.Q. Brown Visits Philippines, Tours EDCA Site Ahead of New Projects – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2024/07/17/gen-c-q-brown-visits-philippines-tours-edca-site-ahead-of-new-projects
  48. antonio bautista air base: OneLook Thesaurus, accessed September 21, 2025, https://onelook.com/reverse-dictionary?s=antonio%20bautista%20air%20base
  49. How Antonio Bautista Air Base is Strategically Positioned to Counters China’s Nine-Dash Line Claim? – YouTube, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrVWGUgXo8
  50. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mactan%E2%80%93Benito_Ebuen_Air_Base#:~:text=Mactan%E2%80%93Benito%20Ebuen%20Air%20Base%20is%20located%20on%20Mactan%20island,Visayas%20region%20of%20the%20Philippines.
  51. Mactan–Benito Ebuen Air Base – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mactan%E2%80%93Benito_Ebuen_Air_Base
  52. Newly renovated hangar at Ebuen Air Base officially turned over – Cebu Daily News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/596153/newly-renovated-hangar-at-ebuen-air-base-officially-turned-over
  53. Lumbia Airfield – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbia_Airfield
  54. Lumbia Airfield – Wikiwand, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Lumbia_Airfield
  55. Lumbia Air Base remains under AFP control despite being an EDCA site – Business Week National – BusinessWeek Mindanao, accessed September 21, 2025, https://businessweekmindanao.com/lumbia-air-base-remains-under-afp-control-despite-being-an-edca-site/
  56. DND, AFP chiefs visit EDCA site in CDO – Philstar.com, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/12/01/2404129/dnd-afp-chiefs-visit-edca-site-cdo
  57. Lumbia basing development ongoing, Teodoro inspects planned EDCA sites, accessed September 21, 2025, https://pia.gov.ph/lumbia-basing-development-ongoing-teodoro-inspects-planned-edca-sites/
  58. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Camilo_Osias#:~:text=Naval%20Base%20Camilo%20Osias%20is,It%20has%20an%20airstrip.&text=The%20United%20States%20Armed%20Forces,United%20States%20and%20the%20Philippines.
  59. Naval Base Camilo Osias is a Key to Strengthen the Philippines’ Defense Against China, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1rhldfulXc
  60. Naval Base Camilo Osias – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Camilo_Osias
  61. Upgrades and Expansion Under the US-Philippines Defense …, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.sofx.com/upgrades-and-expansion-under-the-us-philippines-defense-agreement/
  62. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Melchor_F._dela_Cruz#:~:text=dela%20Cruz%20is%20a%20military,barangay%20Upi%20in%20Gamu%2C%20Isabela.
  63. Camp Melchor F. dela Cruz – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Melchor_F._dela_Cruz
  64. 5th Infantry Division (Philippines) – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Infantry_Division_(Philippines)
  65. Gateway To The Pacific – Cagayan Economic Zone Authority, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ceza.gov.ph/gateway-to-the-pacific/
  66. Cagayan North International Airport – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagayan_North_International_Airport
  67. Balabac Island – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balabac_Island
  68. Philippine Defense Officials Tour New EDCA Sites – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2023/05/23/philippine-defense-officials-tour-new-edca-sites
  69. Military Runway of U.S. and PH EDCA Site Near Spratly Island Almost Complete – YouTube, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEPEy_6tNWo
  70. The US Returns to Subic Bay With Expanded Military Role – MyBaseGuide, accessed September 21, 2025, https://mybaseguide.com/subic-bay
  71. Ex-US Navy Base Revived in China’s Backyard – Newsweek, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/ex-us-navy-base-revived-philippines-2131660
  72. Subic Bay Shipyard Re-Opens after U.S., South Korean Investments – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2025/09/05/subic-bay-shipyard-re-opens-after-u-s-south-korean-investments
  73. U.S. Marines to Stage Equipment at Subic Bay Under New Prepositioning Plan – USNI News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2025/03/17/u-s-marines-to-stage-equipment-at-subic-bay-under-new-prepositioning-plan
  74. U.S. to build world’s largest weapons hub in Subic Bay, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.chosun.com/english/world-en/2025/09/09/DT7YMXMA75BCNEIGU4SP7ZASFM/
  75. United States bases in the Philippines – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bases_in_the_Philippines
  76. Marcos: No additional EDCA sites in Philippines | Philstar.com, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/04/16/2347988/marcos-no-additional-edca-sites-philippines
  77. Antonio Bautista Air Base (Military district) – Mapy.com, accessed September 21, 2025, https://mapy.com/en/?source=osm&id=1048374477&base=
  78. Antonio Bautista Air Base – Wikipedia, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Bautista_Air_Base
  79. Basa Air Base, Floridablanca, Pampanga Profile – PhilAtlas, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.philatlas.com/luzon/r03/pampanga/floridablanca/basa-air-base.html
  80. www.wikiwand.com, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/map/Fort%20Magsaysay#:~:text=Fort%20Magsaysay%20spans%20the%20provinces,Tinio%2C%20Laur%2C%20and%20Dingalan.
  81. UK eyes visiting forces agreement with Philippines | ABS-CBN News, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/9/17/uk-eyes-visiting-forces-agreement-with-philippines-1133
  82. FBO & Ground Handling – Lumbia Airfield (RPML) | Cagayan De Oro, Philippines – Universal Aviation, accessed September 21, 2025, https://www.universalaviation.aero/locations/philippines/cagayan-de-oro-rpml/
  83. CAMP MELCHOR DELA CRUZ MILITARY RESERVATION | Senate of the Philippines Legislative Reference Bureau, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ldr.senate.gov.ph/subject/camp-melchor-dela-cruz-military-reservation
  84. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balabac,_Palawan#:~:text=Balabac%2C%20officially%20the%20Municipality%20of,the%20province%20of%20Palawan%2C%20Philippines.
  85. ceza.gov.ph, accessed September 21, 2025, https://ceza.gov.ph/gateway-to-the-pacific/#:~:text=Lal%2Dlo%20Airport%2C%20also%20known,Freeport%20(CSEZFP)%20in%20Sta.

The Israeli Sayeret Matkal (Unit 269): An Analytical History of Doctrine, Tactics, and Materiel

The formation of Israel’s Sayeret Matkal in 1957 was not a spontaneous creation but a deliberate strategic response to an identified capabilities gap within the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Its genesis and early doctrine were shaped by the lessons learned from its predecessors, the vision of its founder, and the direct influence of established Western special forces, creating a unique entity that would fundamentally alter Israel’s capacity for strategic operations.

The Post-Unit 101 Void: The Need for a Strategic Reconnaissance Asset

The operational history of Israeli special forces in the 1950s was dominated by Unit 101, an aggressive commando force commanded by Ariel Sharon.1 While highly effective in conducting retaliatory raids, the unit was disbanded in 1954 following international outcry over the Qibya massacre, in which a reprisal mission resulted in significant civilian casualties.1 The subsequent merger of Unit 101’s personnel into the Paratroopers Brigade transformed the latter into a more conventional elite infantry formation.2 This left the IDF without a dedicated small-unit force capable of deep penetration and strategic-level missions, a void that the naval-centric Shayetet 13 could not fully address.1 The political fallout from Unit 101’s operations created the strategic necessity for a new type of unit—one that was equally effective but more disciplined and operated under the tight control of the highest command echelon. Sayeret Matkal was conceived not as a direct replacement for Unit 101, but as a doctrinal evolution designed to avoid its predecessor’s political pitfalls while retaining its operational edge.

Avraham Arnan’s Vision: Hand-Picking the Best and Brightest

In 1957, Major Avraham Arnan, an intelligence officer and former Palmach fighter, petitioned the IDF General Staff with a proposal to fill this strategic gap.3 His vision, which received the crucial backing of senior leaders like David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin, was for a unit with a singular mandate: to be dispatched deep into enemy-held territory to conduct top-secret intelligence-gathering missions of strategic importance.1 Central to Arnan’s concept was an exceptionally rigorous and selective recruitment philosophy. The unit was to be composed of not merely physically superior soldiers, but the “best and the brightest” of Israeli youth, hand-picked for their intellectual acuity, mental fortitude, and physical prowess.1

Initially formed within the administrative structure of the Military Intelligence Directorate’s (Aman) Unit 157 (also cited as Unit 504), Sayeret Matkal began to operate as an independent entity directly under the General Staff in 1958.1 Its founding cadre was a blend of experience and ideology, comprising veterans from the pre-state Palmach, the Intelligence Corps, the disbanded Unit 101, and the Paratroopers Brigade, alongside highly motivated young members of the kibbutz movement.3

Forged in the SAS Mold: “Who Dares Wins” and Early Doctrine

Sayeret Matkal was explicitly modeled on the British Army’s Special Air Service (SAS), a unit whose legacy was known in the region from its training bases in Mandatory Palestine during World War II.4 This influence was overt, with Sayeret Matkal adopting the SAS’s structure and its renowned motto, “Who Dares Wins”.1

A defining feature of the new unit’s doctrine was its unique command-and-control arrangement. It was the first unit in the IDF’s history to receive its missions directly from the General Staff (Matkal), bypassing the entire regional command hierarchy.1 This direct line of tasking ensured that the unit’s operations were always aligned with Israel’s highest strategic priorities and subject to stringent oversight, a direct institutional correction to the perceived autonomy of Unit 101. Arnan’s vision extended beyond intelligence collection; the unit was also intended to serve as a testbed for new weapons systems and tactical doctrines that could later be disseminated throughout the IDF.3

Initial Operations: Proving the Concept in the Sinai and Beyond

The concurrent establishment of the IDF’s first helicopter squadron in 1957 was not a coincidence but a symbiotic development that fundamentally altered the potential for deep-penetration operations.1 The existence of a dedicated special reconnaissance unit provided the mission set to drive the development of advanced helicopter infiltration and exfiltration tactics, while the helicopters provided the platform that made Sayeret Matkal’s strategic mandate feasible. This synergy allowed the unit to deploy deeper and for longer durations inside enemy territory than any of its predecessors, establishing Sayeret Matkal as the IDF’s original developer of helicopter infiltration techniques.1

The unit quickly proved its value. Its first successful operational activity was a mission in Lebanon in May 1962, which was followed by another successful operation in Syria five months later.3 Throughout the early 1960s, Sayeret Matkal conducted a series of critical strategic intelligence-gathering operations in the Sinai Peninsula, providing vital information on Egyptian military dispositions.3 However, the very nature of its missions—requiring extensive, meticulous planning and preparation—meant that the unit did not see direct combat action during the Six-Day War in 1967. It was, however, heavily engaged in the subsequent War of Attrition, where its unique capabilities were brought to bear in a sustained, low-intensity conflict.3

Section 2: The Crucible of Terror: The Shift to Counter-Terrorism (1968-1976)

The period following the 1967 Six-Day War witnessed a dramatic shift in the strategic threat landscape facing Israel. The rise of transnational Palestinian militant organizations and their adoption of terrorism as a primary tactic forced Sayeret Matkal to undergo a fundamental evolution. Originally conceived for strategic reconnaissance against conventional armies, the unit was thrust into a new role, becoming a laboratory for the development of modern counter-terrorism and hostage-rescue doctrine. This era, defined by a series of high-stakes operations, forged the unit’s global reputation and established a new paradigm for special operations forces worldwide.

A New Threat Paradigm: The Rise of International Terrorism

After 1967, the proliferation of attacks by groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) presented Israel with an asymmetric threat that its conventional military and existing special operations doctrine were ill-equipped to handle.3 Aircraft hijackings, hostage-takings, and attacks on civilian targets became the new frontline. This reality compelled Sayeret Matkal to expand its charter and begin developing the world’s first dedicated counter-terrorism (CT) and hostage-rescue (HR) techniques from the ground up.3 This was not a gradual shift but a rapid, necessity-driven transformation from a reconnaissance unit into a direct-action counter-terror force.

Pioneering Hostage Rescue: The Tactical Laboratory of Operation Isotope (1972)

The hijacking of Sabena Flight 571 on May 8, 1972, by members of the Black September Organization provided the first major test of the unit’s new capabilities.17 The operation to resolve the crisis, codenamed

Operation Isotope, became a textbook example of tactical innovation. The core of the plan was deception. While negotiators feigned compliance with the terrorists’ demands, a 16-man Sayeret Matkal team, led by Ehud Barak and including a young team leader named Benjamin Netanyahu, prepared to storm the aircraft.5 The operators disguised themselves as aircraft maintenance technicians clad in white coveralls, approaching the Boeing 707 under the pretext of repairing its hydraulic system, which had been discreetly sabotaged the night before.5 This ruse allowed the team to get within feet of the aircraft unchallenged. They then stormed the plane through multiple emergency exits, neutralizing the four hijackers within minutes and rescuing all but one of the 90 passengers.18 The operation’s success was heavily reliant on specialized equipment; operators were armed with Beretta Model 71 pistols chambered in.22LR, a seemingly unconventional choice. The caliber was selected for its low recoil, which aided in precision shooting in the close confines of an aircraft cabin, and its reduced risk of over-penetration that could puncture the fuselage or harm hostages.23

The Beirut Raid: Deception and Audacity in Operation Spring of Youth (1973)

Less than a year later, on the night of April 9, 1973, Sayeret Matkal executed an even more complex mission, Operation Spring of Youth. As a key part of Operation Wrath of God—Israel’s response to the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre—the unit was tasked with assassinating three high-level PLO leaders residing in the heart of Beirut.25 The operation demonstrated a significant scaling-up of the deception tactics used in

Isotope. It was a sophisticated joint operation involving naval insertion via missile boats and Zodiacs, ground transportation provided by pre-positioned Mossad agents with rented cars, and coordinated assaults by Sayeret Matkal and Paratrooper units.25 The mission’s success hinged on meticulous intelligence, which included the precise architectural plans of the targets’ apartment buildings.27 The most audacious element of the plan was the disguise; to avoid suspicion while moving through Beirut’s streets at night, several commandos, including the unit’s commander Ehud Barak, were dressed as women, walking arm-in-arm with their male counterparts as if they were couples on a late-night stroll.5 The teams used suppressed Uzi submachine guns and explosive charges to breach the apartments, eliminating their targets with lethal speed and precision before exfiltrating back to the coast.27

Tragedy and Adaptation: The Lessons of the Ma’alot Massacre (1974)

The unit’s record of success was tragically broken on May 15, 1974, during the Ma’alot school hostage crisis. An attempted rescue of over 100 students and teachers held by terrorists from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) ended in disaster, with 21 children and several adults killed.4 The failed operation exposed critical deficiencies in the unit’s equipment and specialized training at the time. A key tactical failure occurred when a sniper, tasked with initiating the assault by eliminating a terrorist guarding the hostages, was equipped with a World War II-era Mauser 98 bolt-action rifle. Unsuited for a short-range precision headshot, the sniper only wounded the terrorist, who then began shooting and throwing grenades at the children, triggering the massacre.4

The debacle at Ma’alot was a painful but transformative moment for Israel’s counter-terrorism apparatus. It served as a data point that forced a systemic reform, leading directly to the creation of the Yamam (Special Central Unit), a dedicated civilian CT/HR unit under the authority of the Border Police. The establishment of Yamam to handle domestic hostage situations allowed Sayeret Matkal to divest itself of that responsibility and refocus its doctrine and training on its core competencies: foreign counter-terrorism, hostage rescue beyond Israel’s borders, and strategic intelligence operations.1 This division of labor created a more specialized and effective national counter-terrorism framework.

The Zenith of an Era: Strategic Reach and Deception in Operation Entebbe (1976)

The lessons learned throughout this turbulent period culminated in Sayeret Matkal’s most legendary and audacious operation on July 4, 1976. Codenamed Operation Thunderbolt, the mission was to rescue 102 Israeli and Jewish hostages from an Air France flight that had been hijacked by PFLP and German Revolutionary Cells terrorists and flown to Entebbe, Uganda, over 4,000 kilometers from Israel.30

The operation was a synthesis of all the tactical principles the unit had developed: strategic deception, long-range logistical planning, multi-unit coordination, and decisive, violent action. Four IDF C-130 Hercules transport aircraft flew a circuitous, low-altitude route over Africa to avoid radar detection.31 The centerpiece of the assault plan was a stunning act of deception: the lead C-130 carried a black Mercedes-Benz limousine, an exact replica of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin’s personal vehicle, complete with escort Land Rovers.15 Upon landing at Entebbe, this motorcade drove directly from the aircraft’s cargo bay toward the old terminal building where the hostages were held, momentarily confusing the Ugandan army sentries and allowing the assault team to reach the building with the element of surprise.31 The subsequent assault was swift, freeing the hostages in under an hour. To prevent any pursuit, other teams systematically destroyed 11 of Uganda’s Soviet-made MiG fighter jets on the tarmac.31 The mission was a resounding success, though it came at the cost of the unit’s on-scene commander, Lieutenant Colonel Yonatan Netanyahu (brother of Benjamin Netanyahu), who was killed during the exfiltration, along with three hostages.31 For this operation, operators were armed with a mix of weapons, including the compact Uzi SMG and the more powerful IMI Galil ARM assault rifle, which provided the greater range and firepower needed for engaging Ugandan soldiers in a more conventional firefight.37 The global impact of this operation was immense, cementing Sayeret Matkal’s reputation and demonstrating that direct action was a viable, if risky, alternative to capitulation in the face of international terrorism.

Section 3: The Era of Clandestine Warfare and Targeted Operations (1977-2000s)

Following the high-profile hostage rescues of the 1970s, Sayeret Matkal entered a new phase of its evolution. With its counter-terrorism credentials firmly established and the domestic mission largely transferred to Yamam, the unit refined its focus, concentrating on clandestine foreign operations, targeted assassinations, and serving as a strategic asset in Israel’s regional conflicts. This period was characterized by a deeper integration with the national intelligence apparatus and a persistent doctrinal debate over the unit’s proper role in conventional warfare.

Refined Mission Set: The Focus on Foreign Counter-Terrorism and Strategic Strikes

The formalization of Yamam’s role in handling domestic crises allowed Sayeret Matkal to dedicate its resources and training to the complex challenges of operating in non-permissive foreign environments.1 Its primary responsibilities solidified around three pillars: hostage rescue outside of Israel’s borders, strategic direct-action missions against high-value targets, and its original mandate of deep intelligence gathering. This specialization enabled the unit to cultivate an unparalleled expertise in long-range infiltration, covert action, and joint operations with other elements of Israel’s security establishment.

The Long Reach: The Assassination of Abu Jihad in Tunis (1988)

The targeted killing of PLO second-in-command Khalil al-Wazir, known as Abu Jihad, on April 16, 1988, stands as a quintessential example of the unit’s capabilities during this era.5 The operation was a showcase of the seamless integration between Israel’s intelligence and special operations arms. The long-term intelligence gathering, surveillance, and planning were conducted by the Mossad, which provided the precise details of Abu Jihad’s residence, routine, and security arrangements in Tunis.39 Sayeret Matkal provided the specialized military capability to execute the mission with surgical precision at extreme range.

The tactical execution was a complex, multi-layered affair. A 26-man Sayeret Matkal team was inserted by sea via rubber boats launched from naval vessels offshore.39 An advance reconnaissance team once again employed deception, with one operator disguised as a woman, posing as a vacationing couple to approach the target’s villa. This allowed them to neutralize the first bodyguard with a silenced weapon that was reportedly concealed inside a large box of chocolates.39 With the outer security compromised, the main assault team breached the residence, eliminated Abu Jihad and two other guards, and rapidly exfiltrated.39 The entire operation was supported by an IDF aircraft flying off the coast, which jammed local telecommunications networks to disrupt any potential Tunisian or PLO response.41 The operators were reportedly armed with Uzi submachine guns, some equipped with sound suppressors, which were the ideal weapon for such a close-quarters, clandestine operation.41

Operations in the Shadows: The First and Second Lebanon Wars

The unit’s role during Israel’s major conventional conflicts in Lebanon revealed a persistent doctrinal tension regarding the optimal use of such a high-value strategic asset. During the First Lebanon War in 1982, the unit’s commander at the time, Shay Avital, insisted that Sayeret Matkal be deployed as a front-line infantry force.8 This decision sparked internal debate, as it risked the attrition of uniquely trained operators in missions that could potentially be performed by conventional elite infantry, thereby squandering their specialized capabilities for strategic tasks.

By the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the doctrine appeared to have shifted back towards leveraging the unit’s unique strengths. Sayeret Matkal conducted a series of deep-penetration special operations inside Lebanon. One such mission, codenamed Operation Sharp and Smooth, was designed to disrupt Hezbollah’s weapons smuggling routes.5 In another, more prominent raid, a large force of approximately 200 commandos from Sayeret Matkal and the Shaldag unit fast-roped from helicopters to assault a hospital in the city of Baalbek, 100 kilometers deep inside Lebanon. The hospital was being used by Hezbollah as a command-and-control center and a meeting point with Iranian instructors. While the precise objectives remain classified, the raid resulted in the deaths of several Hezbollah militants and sent a powerful strategic message that no location in Lebanon was beyond the IDF’s reach.15

Doctrinal Maturity and Inter-Unit Cooperation

This period saw the maturation of Sayeret Matkal’s working relationships with Israel’s other Tier 1 special forces units. Joint operations with Shayetet 13 (Naval Commandos) and the Shaldag Unit (Air Force Commandos) became more formalized and frequent, allowing for the integration of land, sea, and air special operations capabilities.13 Sayeret Matkal’s role as an incubator of talent and doctrine for the wider Israeli SF community was further solidified. The Shaldag Unit, for example, was originally formed in 1974 from a Sayeret Matkal reserve company, tasked specifically with improving cooperation with the Air Force—a need identified after the Yom Kippur War.1 This demonstrates Matkal’s foundational influence on the development of the IDF’s entire special operations ecosystem.

Section 4: The Modern Operator: Sayeret Matkal in the 21st Century

In the 21st century, Sayeret Matkal continues to operate at the apex of Israel’s national security apparatus, adapting its missions and tactics to a strategic environment dominated by asymmetric threats, hybrid warfare, and the proliferation of advanced weapons technology. While its core mandate of strategic intelligence gathering remains, the nature of that mission has evolved, positioning the unit as a key instrument in Israel’s proactive defense posture.

Contemporary Roles: Strategic Intelligence in the Modern Asymmetric Battlespace

The unit’s primary function continues to be conducting deep reconnaissance behind enemy lines to obtain strategic intelligence.8 However, the “enemy lines” are no longer the clearly defined borders of conventional state armies. Instead, the unit operates in the ambiguous, complex battlespace of non-state actors, proxy forces, and transnational terror networks. Its official designation as the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit underscores its direct link to the highest levels of IDF command, ensuring its missions are driven by national strategic priorities.9 Today, Sayeret Matkal is often described as the meeting point between Israel’s intelligence community and its special operations forces, uniquely positioned to translate high-level intelligence into direct, kinetic effects.15

Adapting to New Threats: Counter-Proliferation and Hybrid Warfare

A critical contemporary mission for Sayeret Matkal is counter-proliferation—preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring strategic weapons capabilities. This role has moved the unit’s focus from mapping enemy tank formations to identifying and neutralizing threats like nuclear programs and precision missile factories before they become operational. This evolution represents a return to the unit’s original strategic reconnaissance mandate, but adapted for the threats of the modern era. The “reconnaissance” is now often a direct precursor to, or an integral part of, a direct-action mission.

A prime example of this mission set occurred in 2007, ahead of Operation Orchard, the Israeli airstrike that destroyed a clandestine Syrian nuclear reactor. Sayeret Matkal operators were reportedly involved in covert missions inside Syria to gather physical evidence, including soil samples from the vicinity of the site, to confirm the nature of the facility.5 More recently, in September 2024, the unit executed a direct-action counter-proliferation raid against an underground Iranian-built precision missile factory near Masyaf, Syria.3 This operation showcased the full spectrum of the unit’s modern capabilities: helicopter insertion via fast-roping, a direct firefight with Syrian guards, the use of explosives to destroy sophisticated underground machinery, and the crucial exfiltration of documents and equipment for intelligence exploitation.3

These operations are the primary kinetic tool for executing Israel’s “Campaign Between the Wars” (Hebrew: Mabam). This doctrine involves a continuous series of low-signature, often deniable actions designed to systematically degrade enemy capabilities, disrupt arms transfers, and postpone the next full-scale conflict. Sayeret Matkal’s ability to conduct surgical, high-impact strikes deep within enemy territory makes it the ideal instrument for this proactive, preventative strategy.

Analysis of Recent Operations and Evolving Tactical Imperatives

The 2024 Syria raid highlights the tactical imperatives of the modern battlespace: speed, precision, and the integration of direct action with intelligence gathering. The mission was not merely to destroy a facility but to seize valuable intelligence materials that could inform future operations. This dual objective of destruction and exploitation is a hallmark of contemporary special operations.

The unit’s versatility extends beyond high-end kinetic missions. During the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sayeret Matkal was tasked with the critical logistical mission of transporting medical test samples from collection points to laboratories.44 While seemingly mundane, this assignment underscores the unit’s reputation within the IDF as the default solution for any complex, no-fail task requiring absolute reliability, discipline, and efficiency, regardless of the context.

Section 5: Small Arms and Technology: The Tools of the Trade

The operational effectiveness of any elite unit is intrinsically linked to its materiel. As a military and small arms analyst, an examination of Sayeret Matkal’s arsenal reveals a clear evolutionary trajectory from pragmatic, often nationally-produced systems to the adoption of the globalized, best-in-class standard for Tier 1 special operations forces. The unit’s choice of weaponry has consistently reflected a focus on reliability, modularity, and tactical suitability for its specific and evolving mission sets.

Historical Armory: From Pragmatism to Specialization

In its formative years, Sayeret Matkal’s armory was characterized by weapons chosen for specific tactical niches, often showcasing Israeli ingenuity and a willingness to adopt unconventional solutions.

  • Beretta Model 71: This compact, Italian-made pistol chambered in.22LR was a highly specialized tool for the unit’s early counter-terrorism and sky marshal roles in the 1960s and 1970s.23 Its selection for high-stakes missions like
    Operation Isotope was driven by a pragmatic assessment of the operational environment. Inside a pressurized aircraft fuselage, the risk of over-penetration from a more powerful cartridge was a significant concern. The.22LR offered sufficient terminal ballistics for close-range engagements while minimizing the danger to hostages and the aircraft’s structural integrity. Its low recoil also enabled rapid, accurate follow-up shots. This choice demonstrates a focus on selecting the optimal tool for a specific task, even if it defied conventional wisdom regarding military calibers.23
  • Uzi Submachine Gun: The iconic Israeli-designed Uzi was a mainstay of the unit for decades. Its compact size, simple blowback operation, and high rate of fire made it an exceptional weapon for the close-quarters battle (CQB) that characterized many of the unit’s hostage-rescue and direct-action missions, including Operation Spring of Youth and the Tunis raid.27 The unit’s extensive operational experience with the weapon led its operators to provide direct feedback to its manufacturer, Israel Military Industries (IMI), resulting in the development of an Uzi variant with a folding metal stock for enhanced stability and accuracy.3
  • IMI Galil: Officially adopted by the IDF in 1972, the Galil assault rifle represented a significant step up in firepower for the unit. Based on the Kalashnikov action for reliability but chambered in the Western 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge, the Galil offered greater range, accuracy, and barrier penetration than the Uzi.37 Its use by Sayeret Matkal operators during
    Operation Entebbe highlights its role as a primary combat rifle, suitable for engaging not just terrorists but also conventional military forces like the Ugandan soldiers at the airport.37

Current-Issue Small Arms Arsenal: The Global SOF Standard

Today, Sayeret Matkal’s arsenal reflects the global convergence of special operations weaponry. The unit prioritizes modular, adaptable platforms that represent the best available technology, regardless of national origin. This shift indicates that the tactical problems faced by elite units worldwide have produced a set of globally recognized “best-in-class” solutions.

Primary Carbines: Colt M4A1 & IWI Arad

The unit’s primary individual weapon is the AR-15 platform carbine, prized for its ergonomics, accuracy, and unparalleled modularity. Operators are known to use both the American-made Colt M4A1 and the newer, Israeli-designed IWI Arad.45

  • Colt M4A1: The M4A1, with its 14.5-inch barrel and full-auto capability, has been the standard for Western SOF for decades. Its direct impingement gas system is lightweight and accurate.
  • IWI Arad: The Arad is a more recent development, representing an evolution of the AR-15 platform. It utilizes a short-stroke gas piston operating system, which is widely considered to offer enhanced reliability over direct impingement, especially when suppressed and in harsh environmental conditions.49 The Arad is fully ambidextrous and features a quick-change barrel system, allowing for potential caliber conversions (e.g., to.300 Blackout for suppressed use) at the operator level.49
  • Configuration: Both platforms are heavily customized to mission requirements. They are equipped with MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny or M-LOK handguards that allow for the mounting of a full suite of accessories, including advanced optics (such as red dot sights with magnifiers), infrared laser aiming modules for use with night vision, tactical lights, and sound suppressors.51

Sidearms: Glock 17 / 19 Series

The standard-issue sidearm for Sayeret Matkal is the Austrian-made Glock pistol, typically the full-size Glock 17 or the compact Glock 19.45 The Glock’s global dominance in military and police circles is due to its simple design, exceptional reliability, high-capacity magazine, and durable polymer frame that is highly resistant to corrosion.54 It serves as a secondary weapon system for operators, used as a backup to their primary carbine or for operations where a rifle would be too conspicuous.

Sniper & Designated Marksman Systems: Barrett MRAD & IWI DAN.338

For precision long-range engagements, the unit employs state-of-the-art, modular sniper systems capable of engaging targets at extreme distances.

  • Barrett MRAD (Mk22): The Barrett Multi-Role Adaptive Design (MRAD) is a bolt-action rifle that was selected by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as its Mk22 Advanced Sniper Rifle.56 Its defining feature is a field-interchangeable barrel system. This allows an operator to switch between calibers—typically
    7.62×51mm NATO,.300 Norma Magnum, and.338 Norma Magnum—by changing the barrel, bolt head, and magazine.56 This modularity provides immense tactical flexibility, enabling the sniper team to configure the rifle for anti-personnel engagements at standard ranges or for anti-materiel or extreme long-range shots with the more powerful magnum calibers.59
  • IWI DAN.338: This is a dedicated extreme long-range precision rifle, developed by IWI in direct collaboration with IDF elite units.60 Chambered in the powerful.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge, the DAN is designed for exceptional accuracy at ranges exceeding 1,200 meters. It features a heavy, free-floating barrel, a fully adjustable chassis, and a two-stage trigger, all contributing to its sub-Minute of Angle (MOA) precision.60

Support Weapons: IWI Negev SF / NG7 & SIG Sauer LMG

To provide suppressive fire for assaulting elements, the unit utilizes light machine guns.

  • IWI Negev SF/NG7: The IWI Negev is the standard IDF light machine gun. Sayeret Matkal employs the Negev SF (Special Forces), a compact version with a shorter barrel chambered in 5.56×45mm.61 For increased range and barrier penetration, the unit also uses the Negev NG7, chambered in the larger
    7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.61
  • SIG Sauer LMG: Recent reports and imagery from late 2024 indicate that the IDF has acquired the new SIG Sauer Light Machine Gun, a variant of the U.S. Army’s XM250, chambered in 7.62×51mm.66 This weapon is significantly lighter than legacy machine guns and features AR-15 style ergonomics. It is highly probable that elite units like Sayeret Matkal are among the first to field and evaluate this next-generation system.66

Summary Table: Current Sayeret Matkal Small Arms

Weapon TypeModel Name(s)Caliber(s)Country of OriginKey Characteristics & Tactical Role
CarbineColt M4A1 / IWI Arad5.56×45mm NATO,.300 BLKUSA / IsraelModular, highly adaptable primary weapon for direct action and CQB.
SidearmGlock 17 / Glock 199×19mm ParabellumAustriaHighly reliable secondary/backup weapon system.
Sniper RifleBarrett MRAD (Mk22)7.62×51mm,.300 NM,.338 NMUSAModular, multi-caliber system for engaging personnel and materiel at variable ranges.
Sniper RifleIWI DAN.338.338 Lapua MagnumIsraelDedicated extreme long-range anti-personnel precision rifle.
Light Machine GunIWI Negev SF / NG75.56×45mm / 7.62×51mmIsraelCompact and lightweight for mobile, suppressive fire support.
Light Machine GunSIG Sauer LMG7.62×51mmUSA/GermanyPotential next-generation, ultra-lightweight support weapon.

Section 6: The Future of ‘The Unit’: Speculative Analysis

The future trajectory of Sayeret Matkal will be defined by the convergence of evolving geopolitical threats, rapid technological advancement, and shifts in Israeli national security doctrine. The unit’s historical capacity for adaptation suggests it will not only absorb these changes but will likely be at the forefront of defining the next generation of special warfare. Its future role will be less that of a standalone direct-action force and more that of the critical human element within a deeply integrated, technologically-driven, multi-domain combat system.

Integration into the Multi-Domain Battlespace: The Role of AI, Cyber, and Unmanned Systems

Modern warfare is increasingly fought across integrated domains of land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace. The IDF is making substantial investments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for intelligence analysis and targeting, as well as in offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.67 As the special operations unit of the Military Intelligence Directorate, Sayeret Matkal is uniquely positioned at the nexus of human intelligence (HUMINT) and the emerging technological domains of signals intelligence (SIGINT) and cyber operations.71

The proliferation of unmanned systems, particularly drones, is set to fundamentally reshape special operations. The future role of Sayeret Matkal is not to be replaced by this technology, but to become its essential human partner in a man-unmanned teaming paradigm. While drones and AI can collect and process vast quantities of data, they currently lack the judgment, ingenuity, and physical capability to act on that data in a complex, non-permissive environment. Future missions will likely see Matkal operators acting as forward controllers for autonomous systems, covertly deploying swarms of sensor and strike drones, validating AI-generated targets in real-time, and executing the final kinetic or non-kinetic effect that only a human on the ground can achieve.73

Evolving IDF Doctrine: Preemption, Prevention, and the “Campaign Between the Wars”

The primary driver of Sayeret Matkal’s future operational tempo and mission set will be the IDF’s strategic shift toward a proactive doctrine of prevention and preemption.75 This doctrine, known as the “Campaign Between the Wars” (

Mabam), moves away from a reactive, deterrence-based posture to one of continuous, low-intensity operations designed to degrade enemy capabilities and prevent the outbreak of major conflicts.67 A doctrine of prevention requires constant action, which cannot take the form of large-scale invasions. It demands small, precise, sustainable, and often deniable operations. Sayeret Matkal is the ideal military instrument for this strategy. The unit’s ability to conduct surgical strikes deep in enemy territory allows Israel to manage strategic threats on the “seam” between peace and war without triggering a full-scale conflagration. Consequently, the demand for the unit’s unique capabilities is likely to increase, driving its funding, training priorities, and operational tempo for the foreseeable future.

The Future Matkal Operator: Skillsets for the Next Generation of Special Warfare

The operator of the future will need to be a “multi-domain” warrior. The core commando skills of marksmanship, navigation, fieldcraft, and infiltration will remain the bedrock of their training. However, these will be augmented by a new layer of technological proficiency. The future Sayeret Matkal operator will likely require skills in controlling unmanned aerial and ground systems, employing tactical cyber-warfare tools, managing encrypted communications networks, and processing and acting upon AI-driven intelligence feeds delivered directly to them on the battlefield. The unit’s selection process, which has always prioritized superior intellect and cognitive ability, will likely place an even greater emphasis on technological aptitude, problem-solving under immense data loads, and the mental flexibility to operate seamlessly between the physical and digital worlds.1

Concluding Analysis: The Enduring Legacy and Future Trajectory of Sayeret Matkal

Sayeret Matkal’s history is a testament to its remarkable capacity for continuous adaptation. Born from a need for strategic reconnaissance, it was forced by geopolitical necessity to become the world’s pioneering counter-terrorism and hostage-rescue force. Having shaped that field, it has now evolved again into a primary tool for proactive, preventative warfare in the 21st century. Its enduring legacy is not tied to any single mission or weapon system but to an organizational culture that prizes intellectual creativity, operational audacity, and ruthless pragmatism.

The unit’s future trajectory points toward a deeper fusion with technology. It will increasingly serve as the human tip of a technologically-driven spear, integrating with AI, cyber capabilities, and autonomous systems to achieve strategic effects for the State of Israel. Sayeret Matkal will continue to be the force that is sent when the mission is deemed impossible, leveraging the most advanced tools available to ensure that, for them, the motto “Who Dares Wins” remains a statement of operational reality.

Sources Used

  1. SAYERET MATKAL – fight club mk, accessed September 6, 2025, https://fight-club-mk.de/sayeret-matkal
  2. Unit 101 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_101
  3. Sayeret Matkal – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeret_Matkal
  4. Background & History of Israel’s Special Forces Units, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-history-of-israel-s-special-forces-units
  5. Sayeret Matkal | Elite Israeli Commando Unit | Britannica, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sayeret-Matkal
  6. Arnan (Herling), Avraham – Honor Israel’s Fallen, accessed September 6, 2025, https://honorisraelsfallen.com/fallen/arnan-herling-avraham/
  7. Review: Sayeret Matkal: The Greatest Operations of Israel’s Elite Commandos by Avner Shur and Ayiram Halevi – CIA, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/ea5be432dbb60c144c21cb63cab2c076/Review-Sayeret-Matkal-Israel-Commandos-Sep-2023.pdf
  8. Sayeret Matkal | IDF, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/our-corps-units-brigades/elite-units/sayeret-matkal/
  9. Sayeret Matkal : Israel Operation – Simran IAS Academy, accessed September 6, 2025, https://simranias.com/blog/sayeret-matkal-israel-operation/
  10. 10.06.2023 The British Inspiration for the IDF’s Sayeret Matkal – the SAS., accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.idf.il/en/articles/2023/the-british-inspiration-for-the-idfs-sayeret-matkal-the-sas/
  11. What is Sayeret Matkal Unit? – Vajiram & Ravi, accessed September 6, 2025, https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/what-is-sayeret-matkal-unit/
  12. What Is Sayeret Matkal, Israel’s Special Forces Unit Set For Hostage Rescue Operation In Gaza? – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CwtKiW3xFo
  13. Israeli Special Forces: A Comprehensive Guide – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/the-israeli-special-forces/
  14. Sayeret Matkal: the greatest operations of Israel’s elite commandos: by Avner Shur and Aviram Halevi, New York, Skyhorse Publi, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13537121.2024.2318942
  15. Sayeret Matkal | Best SF Unit On Earth? – Agilite, accessed September 6, 2025, https://agilitegear.com/blogs/news/sayeret-matkal
  16. Sayeret Matkal | Most Elite Special Forces Unit On Earth? – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NTlT1qRDYM
  17. Sabena Flight 571/Operation Isotope – World Bnei Akiva, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.worldbneiakiva.org/items/sabena-flight-571%2Foperation-isotope
  18. Sabena Flight 571 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabena_Flight_571
  19. What was Operation Isotope? – CFI-USA, accessed September 6, 2025, https://cfi-usa.org/operation-isotope/
  20. When the prime ministers took down the hijackers | The Times of Israel, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-the-prime-ministers-took-down-the-hijackers/
  21. Israel’s Most Famous Hostage-Rescue Commando Faces His …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/israel-most-famous-hostage-rescue-commando-faces-his-toughest-test-1836656
  22. Sabena Flight 571 Hijacking | IDF, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/wars-and-operations/sabena-flight-571-hijacking/
  23. The unassuming Beretta Model 71 was the pistol of choice for some of Israel’s best units, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.sandboxx.us/news/the-unassuming-beretta-model-71-was-the-pistol-of-choice-for-some-of-israels-best-units/
  24. Israeli Spy/Assassination Pistol – Beretta Model 71/ [ Mad Lads ] Mossad + Sayeret Matkal stories – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLufq-CA7bM&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
  25. Operation Spring of Youth | IDF, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/wars-and-operations/operation-spring-of-youth/
  26. 1973 Israeli raid in Lebanon – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Israeli_raid_in_Lebanon
  27. Operation Spring of Youth (1973) – Jewish Virtual Library, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-spring-of-youth-1973
  28. Israeli Commandos Raid Beirut | CIE – Center for Israel Education, accessed September 6, 2025, https://israeled.org/israeli-commandos-raid-beirut/
  29. On This Day: Operation Spring of Youth – IDSF, accessed September 6, 2025, https://idsf.org.il/en/history-en/operation-spring-of-youth/
  30. Black Ops Special Forces: Operation Thunderbolt – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzlDX8TaP94&vl=en
  31. Entebbe raid – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entebbe_raid
  32. Operation Entebbe. On this day in 1976, after Arab terrorists hijacked a plane with 106 passengers, the Israeli special forces unit Sayeret Matkal carried out an unprecedented operation in Entebbe, Uganda. The successful rescue of 102 hostages. – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/tjournal_refugees/comments/1lrka00/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B1%D0%B5_%D0%B2_%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C_%D0%B2_1976_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5/?tl=en
  33. This day in 1976, following the hijacking of a plane with 105 passengers by Palestinian terrorists, the IDF Sayeret Matkal special forces conducted a daring raid in Entebbe, Uganda. Saving 102 of the hostages successfully : r/Israel – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/1lrewdv/this_day_in_1976_following_the_hijacking_of_a/
  34. This day in 1976, following the hijacking of a plane with 105 passengers by Palestinian terrorists, the IDF Sayeret Matkal special forces conducted a daring raid in Entebbe, Uganda. Saving 102 of the hostages successfully – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SnapshotHistory/comments/1lrewf1/this_day_in_1976_following_the_hijacking_of_a/
  35. Yonatan Netanyahu – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonatan_Netanyahu
  36. Operation Entebbe/Yonatan | World Bnei Akiva, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.worldbneiakiva.org/items/operation-entebbe%2Fyonatan
  37. Classic Guns: The Israeli Galil | An Official Journal Of The NRA – Shooting Illustrated, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/classic-guns-the-israeli-galil/
  38. Assassination in Tunis | PLO – Al Jazeera, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/video/al-jazeera-world/2020/4/15/assassination-in-tunis
  39. Israel ‘admits’ killing Arafat’s deputy | News | Al Jazeera, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2012/11/1/israel-admits-killing-arafats-deputy
  40. Khalil al-Wazir: Paving the Way of Armed Struggle – Jadaliyya, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/25670
  41. Letter dated 19 April 1988 from the Permanent Representative of Tunisia – the United Nations, accessed September 6, 2025, https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/sites/default/files/en/sc/repertoire/85-88/Chapter%208/85-88_08-38-Letter%20dated%2019%20April%201988%20from%20the%20Permanent%20Representative%20of%20Tunisia.pdf
  42. Sayeret Matkal – Jewish Virtual Library, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sayeret-matkal
  43. The Sayeret Matkal: Israel’s Lethal Warriors – The Melting Thought, accessed September 6, 2025, https://themeltingthought2000.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/the-sayeret-matkal-israels-lethal-warriors/
  44. The Role of the Israel Defense Forces in Israel’s COVID-19 Crisis: Review, Lessons, and Assessment – The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, accessed September 6, 2025, https://jstribune.com/idf-role-in-israels-covid-19-crisis/
  45. 2 Israeli Tier 1 raiders from shayetet 13 with their new sig mcx rifle , 2023 – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpecOpsArchive/comments/17efxja/2_israeli_tier_1_raiders_from_shayetet_13_with/
  46. List of equipment of the Israel Defense Forces – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces
  47. Israeli Special forces tier 1 operator from the Intelligence Corps Holding in his hand the flag of the State of Israel , Oct 2023 : r/SpecOpsArchive – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpecOpsArchive/comments/177ckeh/israeli_special_forces_tier_1_operator_from_the/
  48. Does Israel use the M4 Carbine still, or have they phased all of them out in favor of the Tavor? – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/173xskj/does_israel_use_the_m4_carbine_still_or_have_they/
  49. IWI ARAD – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_ARAD
  50. IWI ARAD HIGHLY EFFICIENT & RELIABLE MODULAR BATTLE RIFLE, accessed September 6, 2025, https://iwi.net/arad/
  51. Rifle Parts, Accessories & Upgrades, accessed September 6, 2025, https://armsunlimited.com/rifle-parts/
  52. AR-15 Accessories | M4 Accessories | GG&G Tactical Accessories, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.gggaz.com/ar-15-m4-accessories.html
  53. IDF Combat Accessories – zahal, accessed September 6, 2025, https://zahal.org/all-categories/rifle-accessories-parts/idf-combat-accessories/
  54. Why There Is No Gun Like a Glock (And Why the World’s Militaries Love Them), accessed September 6, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-there-no-gun-glock-why-the-worlds-militaries-love-them-25842/
  55. Top Choice of Elite Military Units: SpecOps Glocks – SWAT Survival | Weapons | Tactics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.swatmag.com/article/top-choice-elite-military-units-specops-glocks/
  56. Barrett MRAD – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_MRAD
  57. MK22 MRAD Sniper Rifle, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.specialforceshistory.info/weapons/MK22-MRAD.html
  58. MRAD® – Barrett Firearms, accessed September 6, 2025, https://barrett.net/products/mrad/
  59. Barrett MRAD Review [ 2025 ]: Military Grade Sniper Rifle – Gun University, accessed September 6, 2025, https://gununiversity.com/barrett-mrad-review/
  60. IWI DAN .338 Sniper Rifle | Product Info, accessed September 6, 2025, https://iwi.net/iwi-dan-338-sniper-rifle/
  61. IWI Negev – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Negev
  62. NEGEV NG5 SF – 18″ Lightweight Machine Gun | IWI US, accessed September 6, 2025, https://iwi.us/firearms/negev/ng5-sf-lmg/
  63. negev sf – light machine gun (lmg) – IWI, accessed September 6, 2025, https://iwi.net/iwi-negev-machine-gun/negev-sf/
  64. NEGEV NG7 SF 7.62 NATO – Compact Machine Gun | IWI US, accessed September 6, 2025, https://iwi.us/firearms/negev/ng7-sf-lmg/
  65. IWI Negev Machine Gun | Product Info, accessed September 6, 2025, https://iwi.net/iwi-negev-machine-gun/
  66. Israel Buys 7.62x51mm Version Of U.S. Army’s New Sig Sauer M250 …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.twz.com/land/israel-buys-7-62x51mm-version-of-u-s-armys-new-sig-sauer-m250-light-machine-gun-report
  67. Israel Defense Forces Strategy Document | The Belfer Center for …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/israel-defense-forces-strategy-document
  68. The IDF Introduces Artificial Intelligence to the Battlefield – A New Frontier? – Lieber Institute, accessed September 6, 2025, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/idf-introduces-ai-battlefield-new-frontier/
  69. Israel – Hamas 2024 Symposium – Beyond the Headlines: Combat Deployment of Military AI-Based Systems by the IDF – Lieber Institute, accessed September 6, 2025, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/beyond-headlines-combat-deployment-military-ai-based-systems-idf/
  70. The Impact of Israeli Cyber Operations on Hezbollah – Arab Center Washington DC, accessed September 6, 2025, https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-impact-of-israeli-cyber-operations-on-hezbollah/
  71. Military Intelligence Directorate | IDF, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/directorates/military-intelligence-directorate/military-intelligence-directorate/
  72. Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel) – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Intelligence_Directorate_(Israel)
  73. Ungentlemanly Robots: Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the New …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/ungentlemanly-robots-israels-operation-rising-lion-and-new-way-war
  74. A Perspective on Israel – Proliferated Drones – CNAS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://drones.cnas.org/reports/a-perspective-on-israel/
  75. Time to Revise Israel’s Military Doctrine – JISS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://jiss.org.il/en/inbar-time-to-revise-israels-military-doctrine/
  76. A new security doctrine is needed, even if the price is perpetual war – Israel Hayom, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/10/24/a-new-security-doctrine-is-needed-even-if-the-price-is-perpetual-war/
  77. Going on the Attack: The Theoretical Foundation of the Israel Defense Forces’ Momentum Plan | IDF, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/dado-center/vol-28-30-military-superiority-and-the-momentum-multi-year-plan/going-on-the-attack-the-theoretical-foundation-of-the-israel-defense-forces-momentum-plan-1/

By Strength and Guile: An Analytical History and Future Trajectory of the UK Special Boat Service

In the aftermath of the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, the strategic landscape for the United Kingdom was stark. With conventional forces ejected from continental Europe, the imperative arose for a new form of warfare based on raiding, reconnaissance, and sabotage.1 This necessity gave birth to the British Commandos, units designed for highly mobile, aggressive “butcher and bolt” operations. It was within this crucible of unconventional military thinking that the specialized units destined to become the Special Boat Service (SBS) were forged.1

1.2 The Folboat Pioneers

The conceptual origins of the SBS can be traced to one individual: Major Roger ‘Jumbo’ Courtney. A charismatic and determined Commando officer, Courtney championed the novel idea of using folding kayaks, known as “folboats,” for clandestine amphibious operations.2 His proposals were initially met with skepticism by the naval establishment. To prove the concept’s viability, Courtney undertook a daring clandestine infiltration of HMS

Glengyle, a Landing Ship, Infantry anchored in the River Clyde. He paddled to the ship, boarded undetected, inscribed his initials on the captain’s cabin door, and absconded with a deck gun cover, which he later presented to a meeting of astonished senior naval officers.3 This act of initiative, a perfect embodiment of the unit’s future motto “By Strength and Guile,” led to his promotion and the authority to form a twelve-man unit.3

This small cadre was officially formed in July 1940 as the Folboat Troop of No. 8 Commando.4 In February 1941, the unit deployed to the Middle East as part of the larger “Layforce” commando group, where it was formally designated the No. 1 Special Boat Section (SBS).2 From bases in Malta and Alexandria, attached to the 1st Submarine Flotilla, the SBS began to refine its unique tactics. Early operations focused on stealthy insertion via submarine and two-man canoe teams to conduct beach reconnaissance of targets like Rhodes, sabotage raids along the Libyan and Cyrenaican coasts, and the destruction of infrastructure such as railway lines.2 Their primary weapons were skill, stealth, and explosives, particularly limpet mines.

1.3 Expansion and Integration with the SAS

The demonstrable success of these early operations led to a decision to expand the capability. In December 1941, Major Courtney returned to the UK to establish a second unit, No. 2 SBS, which was formed from the battle-hardened 101 Troop of No. 6 Commando.4 This move indicated a shift towards a more formalized selection process, drawing upon soldiers with proven operational experience.

Concurrently, in the Middle East, a pivotal organizational change occurred. In September 1942, No. 1 SBS was formally absorbed into Lieutenant Colonel David Stirling’s 1st Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment.2 This event was not a dissolution but an integration that marked the beginning of the complex, symbiotic relationship that defines UK Special Forces (UKSF). The absorption into the SAS was a logical step to consolidate Britain’s disparate special units in the theatre, but it did not erase the SBS’s unique identity. When the SAS was reorganized in April 1943 into the Special Raiding Squadron (SRS) under Paddy Mayne, the SBS re-emerged as a distinct entity, the Special Boat Squadron, under the command of Lord Jellicoe.2 This early organizational fluidity demonstrates a recognition by high command that while the two units’ skills were complementary, the maritime specialization of the SBS was distinct and valuable enough to warrant its own command structure within the broader special operations framework.

Throughout the war, the SBS and its forebears, such as the Royal Marines Boom Patrol Detachment, conducted legendary operations. The most famous of these was Operation Frankton in December 1942, where Royal Marines led by Major Herbert ‘Blondie’ Hasler—the famed “Cockleshell Heroes”—paddled 60 miles up the Gironde estuary to attack shipping in Bordeaux harbour.1 The SBS’s most significant strategic contribution, however, came in the Aegean Sea. Here, a force of approximately 300 SBS operators conducted a highly effective island-hopping campaign of raids and sabotage that successfully tied down and neutralized six entire German divisions.6 This achievement of a small, specialized force creating a disproportionate strategic effect became the foundational proof-of-concept for the enduring value of a dedicated maritime special operations unit.

Section 2: Post-War Identity and Cold War Operations (1945-1989)

2.1 Reorganization and Formalization

With the end of the Second World War, the majority of Britain’s special forces were disbanded. However, the hard-won skills of the various special boat units were not lost. In 1947, their roles, and many of their experienced personnel, were absorbed into the newly formed Royal Marines’ Combined Operations Beach and Boats Section (COBBS), under the command of the veteran ‘Blondie’ Hasler.1 This decision to house the capability within the Royal Marines was a critical and logical choice. It ensured that the nascent unit was embedded within a parent organization that inherently understood and valued amphibious warfare, small boat handling, and coastal raiding, providing a stable foundation for development and a natural recruitment pool.1

This post-war entity underwent several name changes that reflected its evolving status and increasing formalization. In 1948, it became the Special Boat Section again, then the Special Boat Company in 1951, and the Special Boat Squadron in 1974.1 The final and current designation, the Special Boat Service, was adopted in 1987 when the unit formally assumed the UK’s maritime counter-terrorism responsibilities.1

2.2 Cold War Deployments and Skill Expansion

The decades of the Cold War served as a crucible for the unit, forcing it to adapt its core WWII skillset to a wide spectrum of conflicts and operational environments. This period was crucial in preventing the unit’s capabilities from becoming overly specialized and laid the groundwork for the multi-role force of today.

During the Korean War (1950-53), the unit reprised its classic wartime role, conducting sabotage missions and raids along the North Korean coast. Launching from submarines and warships, SBS teams damaged North Korean and Chinese lines of communication and supply, demonstrating a direct application of their established tactics in a new conventional conflict.1

The Indonesian Confrontation (1962-66) presented a completely different challenge. Deployed in the dense jungles of Borneo, SBS teams conducted long-range reconnaissance patrols and amphibious raids across the border into Indonesian Kalimantan.1 This theatre demanded proficiency in jungle and riverine warfare, significantly broadening the unit’s operational capabilities beyond its traditional open-water and coastal focus.

The unit was also active during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Its tasks there shifted again, focusing on clandestine surveillance and counter-insurgency.1 A notable mission in January 1975 involved two SBS kayak teams launching from the submarine HMS

Cachalot to conduct an operation against arms trafficking routes between Torr Head and Garron Point.7 This operation exemplified the highly specialized and covert application of their core maritime skills in a domestic, low-intensity conflict.

Section 3: The Dual Pillars of Modernity: Maritime Counter-Terrorism and the Falklands Conflict

The period from the early 1970s to the early 1980s was transformative for the unit, establishing the twin pillars of its modern identity. The near-simultaneous development of a new, high-stakes counter-terrorism role and the successful application of its traditional military skills in a conventional war elevated the Special Boat Squadron to a true Tier 1 special forces organization, capable of operating across the full spectrum of conflict.

3.1 The Rise of Maritime Counter-Terrorism (MCT)

The catalyst for the SBS’s formal entry into the counter-terrorism world was a dramatic real-world incident. In 1972, a bomb threat was made against the passenger liner Queen Elizabeth II while it was in the mid-Atlantic. In response, a team of SBS operators and a bomb-disposal officer parachuted into the ocean and boarded the vessel to deal with the threat.1

Shortly after this high-profile event, the SBS was formally designated as the UK’s lead for maritime counter-terrorism (MCT). This new responsibility tasked them with protecting the nation’s ports, ferries, cruise ships, and, critically, the vital and vulnerable oil and gas platforms in the North Sea.1 This role demanded a fundamental evolution in tactics and training. The unit had to develop entirely new TTPs for hostage rescue in the complex and dangerous environments found at sea. This included advanced methods for ship boarding, such as fast-roping from helicopters and stealthy approaches by high-speed boats, and mastering close-quarters battle (CQB) in the confined spaces of a ship’s interior or an oil rig’s superstructure.6 For many years, M Squadron was the unit’s dedicated MCT element.6

3.2 The Falklands War (1982): A Return to Roots

A decade after the QE2 incident, the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands thrust the SBS back into its traditional role of supporting a major amphibious operation. The conflict served as a powerful validation of their core military skills in one of the most demanding environments on earth.

Weeks before the main British task force arrived in the South Atlantic, SBS teams were covertly inserted into the islands to conduct strategic reconnaissance.5 The initial plan to use the nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) HMS

Conqueror for the first insertion highlights the continued primacy of the submarine as the preferred platform for achieving long-range, clandestine deployment.9 This synergy between the Submarine Service and the SBS remains a cornerstone of UK maritime special operations.

The SBS played a crucial role in the first British victory of the war, Operation Paraquet, the recapture of South Georgia. Operating alongside the SAS and Royal Marines, they demonstrated their ability to function effectively in the extreme Antarctic environment.5 During the main campaign on the Falkland Islands, the SBS conducted a series of direct action raids and deception operations. They cleared Argentine positions from Fanning Head and conducted reconnaissance and diversionary missions at Fox Bay and Port Howard.11 In a critical action immediately preceding the main amphibious assault, SBS teams secured the approaches to San Carlos Water, neutralizing enemy observation posts and ensuring the safety of the landing force.1 As the campaign neared its conclusion, a combined SAS-SBS force led a diversionary attack to draw Argentine attention away from the main British assault on the mountains surrounding Port Stanley.5

Section 4: From the Sea to the Sand: Land-Centric Warfare (1990-2014)

The end of the Cold War and the rise of new global threats saw the SBS increasingly deployed in sustained, land-centric campaigns far from any coastline. This period fundamentally reshaped the unit, blurring the traditional operational boundaries between the SBS and the SAS and driving significant organizational and doctrinal change across UK Special Forces.

4.1 Gulf War (1991): Strategic Sabotage

During Operation Granby, the UK’s contribution to the 1991 Gulf War, the SBS executed one of the most significant special operations of the conflict. While the SAS was famously tasked with “Scud hunting” in the western desert, the SBS was assigned a mission of strategic importance deep inside Iraq.12 Intelligence had identified a network of buried fibre-optic communication cables south of Baghdad, which the Iraqi regime was using to transmit targeting data to its mobile Scud missile launchers.12 This critical command-and-control node was immune to the massive Allied air campaign.12

In a daring night-time raid, a team of approximately 36 SBS operators was inserted by two RAF Chinooks to a landing zone just 40 miles from the Iraqi capital.12 One element, laden with explosives and cable detection gear, located and destroyed the buried cables, while the remainder of the force established a protective perimeter.12 This mission demonstrated the enduring relevance of special operations forces; in a conflict dominated by high-technology air power, a critical vulnerability could only be exploited by a small team of highly trained operators on the ground.12

4.2 Sierra Leone (2000): Hostage Rescue and Counter-Insurgency

In September 2000, the SBS participated in Operation Barras, a high-risk hostage rescue mission in Sierra Leone.14 Soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment had been captured by a brutal militia known as the “West Side Boys.” In the preparatory phase of the operation, SBS reconnaissance teams were inserted by boat to conduct close-target surveillance of the enemy camps at Gberi Bana and Magbeni, gathering vital intelligence for the assault force.15 During the main assault, a troop from C Squadron, SBS, was integrated with D Squadron, 22 SAS, to form the primary assault force that stormed Gberi Bana and successfully rescued the hostages.14 The operation was a resounding success, effectively destroying the West Side Boys and helping to restore stability to the country.15

4.3 Afghanistan (2001-2014): The Long War

Following the 9/11 attacks, the SBS was at the forefront of UK operations in Afghanistan. In November 2001, C Squadron SBS deployed to Bagram airbase, securing it for the arrival of subsequent coalition forces.16 The unit was quickly integrated into joint US/UK task forces, such as Task Force Dagger, to hunt senior Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership in the mountains of Tora Bora.7

From 2006, the SBS was heavily engaged in the counter-insurgency campaign in Helmand Province. Their focus shifted to direct action raids against high-value Taliban commanders, such as the successful operations to neutralize Mullah Dadullah and Mullah Asad.11 These missions, typically conducted via helicopter assault, saw the SBS operating in a manner almost indistinguishable from their SAS counterparts. This operational convergence was a defining feature of the conflict and a primary driver for the creation of a joint UKSF selection course.6 The intense operational tempo and the nature of the fighting also highlighted the need for dedicated infantry support, leading directly to the formation of the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG).17

4.4 Iraq (2003-2009): Integrated Task Force Operations

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the SBS returned to a more traditional maritime role, working alongside US Navy SEALs to secure the beaches and critical oil infrastructure of the Al Faw Peninsula ahead of the main amphibious landings.1 However, as the conflict transitioned into a counter-insurgency, the SBS was integrated into Task Force Black (later renamed Task Force Knight), the UKSF component of a joint US/UK special operations command tasked with dismantling Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).19

Within this structure, SBS operators participated in a relentless campaign of intelligence-led raids against insurgent leaders and bomb-making cells. A notable example was Operation Marlborough in July 2005, where an M Squadron SBS team, supported by the SAS, successfully neutralized an AQI suicide bomber cell in Baghdad.21 In 2005, a UKSF directive assigned the lead for operations in Iraq to the SAS, while the SBS took the lead in Afghanistan, though operators from both units continued to serve in both theatres, further cementing the integrated nature of modern UKSF.19

Section 5: The Modern Special Boat Service: Structure, Role, and Tactics

Today’s Special Boat Service is a mature, highly capable Tier 1 special forces unit, fully integrated into the UK’s national security architecture. Its structure, roles, and training reflect the lessons learned from decades of diverse operations, from clandestine reconnaissance to high-intensity counter-terrorism.

5.1 Command and Organization

The SBS is a core component of United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF), a tri-service directorate commanded by the Director Special Forces (DSF).8 Within this structure, the SBS stands alongside the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) as a Tier 1 unit.8 The unit’s strength is estimated at 200-250 personnel, drawn primarily from the Royal Marines Commandos, though it is a tri-service organization open to all branches of the armed forces.18

The operational element of the SBS is organized into four squadrons: C, X, M, and Z. These are supplemented by a reserve unit, SBS(R), whose members augment the regular squadrons.6 Each squadron is composed of approximately four 16-man troops, which can be further broken down into 8-man boat teams, 4-man patrols, or 2-man canoe pairs depending on mission requirements.7 This modular structure provides significant tactical flexibility.

A key evolution in the modern SBS is the move away from fixed squadron specializations to a rotational model. Where once M Squadron was permanently dedicated to MCT and Z Squadron to underwater operations using Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDVs), it is now understood that all squadrons rotate through these specialized roles, likely on a six-month cycle.7 This doctrinal shift prevents the siloing of critical skills, ensuring that the entire unit maintains a high degree of proficiency across all core tasks. It creates a more resilient and flexible force, dramatically increasing the pool of operators available for any given contingency.

5.2 Core Roles and Capabilities

The principal roles of the modern SBS are multifaceted, leveraging its unique maritime expertise while also maintaining capabilities similar to the SAS.3 These roles include:

  • Surveillance and Reconnaissance (SR): This remains a foundational skill, encompassing everything from clandestine beach surveys ahead of an amphibious landing to covert intelligence gathering in urban or rural environments.3
  • Offensive Action (OA): This broad category includes direct action missions such as raids, sabotage, and ambushes, as well as the direction of precision air strikes and naval gunfire.3
  • Maritime Counter-Terrorism (MCT): The SBS holds the primary UK responsibility for this role. A squadron is maintained at a high state of readiness to respond to terrorist incidents aboard ships, on oil and gas platforms, or in ports and harbours.1 This capability has been demonstrated in recent years with successful operations to secure the container ship
    Grande Tema in 2018 and the oil tanker Nave Andromeda in 2020.11
  • Support and Influence: This involves working with, training, and advising foreign military and paramilitary forces, a key component of modern special operations.

The modern SBS functions as the core of a wider maritime special operations “eco-system.” It is supported by dedicated units within UKSF, including the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) for larger-scale security and blocking operations, 18 (UKSF) Signals Regiment for specialist communications, the Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing (JSFAW) for helicopter support, and the Royal Marines’ Special Forces Boat Operators (SFBOs), who are specially trained to pilot the unit’s surface craft.8 This integrated structure allows the SBS to focus on its primary mission while leveraging dedicated support for more complex tasks.

5.3 Selection and Training

Entry into the SBS is one of the most demanding military selection processes in the world. All candidates, regardless of their parent service, must first pass the joint UKSF Selection course, which is run alongside their SAS counterparts.1 This grueling process lasts for months and tests candidates to their absolute physical and mental limits, with phases covering endurance marches in the Welsh mountains, tactical training in the jungle, and a final combat survival and resistance-to-interrogation phase.6

Those who successfully pass joint selection and are earmarked for the SBS then proceed to specialist maritime training. The cornerstone of this is the Swimmer Canoeist (SC3) course, where they master the core skills of the Special Boat Service. This includes advanced combat diving techniques, particularly with closed-circuit rebreathers, long-distance canoeing, underwater demolitions, hydrographic survey, and beach reconnaissance.6 All SBS operators are also trained as static-line and free-fall parachutists, ensuring they can be inserted by land, sea, or air.5

Section 6: Evolution of Specialist Equipment

The tactical evolution of the SBS has been inextricably linked to the development of its specialist equipment. From rudimentary canoes and diving gear, the unit’s inventory has evolved into a suite of advanced systems designed to provide a decisive advantage in the maritime environment, primarily through stealth and speed.

6.1 Underwater Systems: The Key to Covertness

The ability to operate undetected beneath the surface is the SBS’s defining capability. This has been driven by two parallel streams of technological evolution: personal breathing apparatus and submersible delivery platforms.

The most critical leap in individual capability has been the transition from early open-circuit Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) to modern Closed-Circuit Rebreathers (CCRs).23 Unlike SCUBA, which vents all exhaled gas into the water as bubbles, a CCR recycles the diver’s breath. It scrubs the carbon dioxide using a chemical absorbent and injects small amounts of pure oxygen to replenish what is metabolized by the body.25 The complete absence of bubbles provides an immense tactical advantage, allowing operators to approach a target—such as a ship’s hull or a harbour installation—with near-total stealth.25

To transport operators covertly over long distances underwater, the SBS employs Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDVs). This capability traces its lineage to WWII-era craft like the Motorised Submersible Canoe, nicknamed the ‘Sleeping Beauty’.28 The need for a more robust platform during the Indonesian Confrontation led to the development of the two-man Archimedes SDV in the 1960s, a project that proved the operational requirement for such a craft.30 Today, the SBS operates the US-built Mark 8 Mod 1 SDV.28 This is a “wet” submersible, meaning the crew and passengers are exposed to the water, breathing from the vehicle’s onboard air supply or their own rebreathers.28 The Mk 8 can carry a pilot, a navigator, and a four-man team, and is typically launched from a Dry Deck Shelter (DDS) fitted to a host submarine.28 This combination of a host submarine for strategic transit, an SDV to close the distance to the target area, and operators on rebreathers for the final approach constitutes a tactical trinity that provides unparalleled clandestine reach. The SBS is also slated to receive the new, more advanced Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) to replace the aging Mk 8 fleet.32

6.2 Mobility and Insertion Platforms

While underwater systems are key to stealth, surface craft provide speed and flexibility. The simple two-man Klepper folding canoe was the unit’s foundational craft and remains a core skill.2 Over time, the inventory has expanded to include a range of Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs) and Inflatable Raiding Craft (IRCs) for rapid insertion, extraction, and coastal patrols.1

For high-threat environments and MCT operations, the SBS employs a fleet of specialized high-speed vessels. These include Fast Interceptor Craft (FICs) and Long Range Interceptor Craft (LRICs), designed for rapid interdiction and pursuit.7 One of the most advanced platforms is the Very Slender Vessel (VSV), a wave-piercing boat with a low radar cross-section, providing a degree of surface stealth.7 These craft are heavily armed and serve as the primary platforms for responding to terrorist incidents at sea.

Section 7: Current Small Arms and Operator Weapon Systems

UKSF units, including the SBS, operate with significant autonomy in their procurement of small arms, allowing them to select weapon systems that best suit their specialized requirements. This results in an inventory that is distinct from the standard-issue equipment of the wider British Armed Forces, prioritizing modularity, reliability, and ergonomic performance. The arsenal reflects a doctrine of “scalable lethality,” enabling even small teams to possess a range of capabilities to address threats from close quarters to extended ranges.

7.1 Primary Weapon System: The L119A1/A2 Carbine

The standard individual weapon of the SBS is the Colt Canada C8 SFW (Special Forces Weapon), designated in UK service as the L119.35 This 5.56x45mm NATO carbine, based on the AR-15/M4 platform, replaced the M16/C7 family in the early 2000s.35

  • L119A1: The initial variant features a heavy, cold-hammer-forged barrel, available in a standard 15.7-inch length or a 10-inch version for Close Quarters Battle (CQB).35 It includes a flat-top receiver and a Knight’s Armament Company Rail Adapter System (RAS) for mounting optics and accessories.35
  • L119A2: A mid-life upgrade introduced in 2013, the L119A2 features a monolithic upper receiver, which integrates the handguard into a single rigid piece.35 This design provides a more stable platform for mounting lasers and optics, preventing any loss of zero. Other upgrades include a custom flash hider, fully ambidextrous controls, and improved furniture.35

7.2 Sidearms

The SBS has transitioned through several sidearms, with current operators primarily using the Glock 17.

  • Glock 17/19 Gen 4 (L131A1): The current standard-issue sidearm for all UK forces, the 9x19mm Glock 17 is a polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol.39 It is favored for its exceptional reliability, light weight, and a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds.39 The more compact Glock 19 is also used, particularly for concealed carry or close protection duties.40
  • SIG Sauer P226 (L105A2): The predecessor to the Glock, the 9x19mm SIG P226 is a highly regarded hammer-fired pistol, known for its accuracy and reliability.41 While largely replaced by the Glock 17, it may still see some use. The P226R variant features an accessory rail, and UKSF operators often utilized extended 20-round magazines.43

7.3 Specialist and Support Weaponry

To provide tactical flexibility, SBS teams are equipped with a range of specialist and support weapons.

  • Submachine Gun: The Heckler & Koch MP5 in 9x19mm remains in the inventory for specific niche roles. While the L119A2 CQB has largely taken over the primary CQB role, the compact MP5K is ideal for covert work, and the integrally suppressed MP5SD offers an exceptionally quiet option for stealthy sentry removal.44
  • Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR): The Lewis Machine & Tool L129A1 Sharpshooter, chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO, provides rapid and precise semi-automatic fire out to 800 meters. It bridges the capability gap between the 5.56mm carbine and long-range sniper rifles, giving a small patrol a significant overmatch capability.46
  • Sniper Rifle: The primary long-range precision weapon is the Accuracy International L115A3 Long Range Rifle. Chambered in the powerful.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge, it has an effective range exceeding 1,100 meters and is typically paired with a high-magnification Schmidt & Bender 5-25×56 PM II scope.48
  • Machine Guns: For squad-level suppressive fire, the 5.56x45mm FN Minimi Para (L110A2) is used.51 UKSF also has access to the 7.62x51mm variant, known as the ‘Maximi’ or LMG, which offers greater range and barrier penetration.52 For vehicle-mounted applications, the 12.7mm (.50 caliber) Browning Heavy Machine Gun (designated L1A1 or L111A1) provides devastating firepower against light vehicles and structures.34
  • Grenade Launchers: The Heckler & Koch AG-C 40mm grenade launcher, designated L17A1, is fitted to the L119A2 carbine. This side-loading launcher is more versatile than the older M203 it replaced, allowing for the use of a wider variety of ammunition types.54

7.4 System Enhancements

To maximize effectiveness, these weapon platforms are augmented with a suite of advanced accessories.

  • Optics: Operators have access to a wide selection of best-in-class optics, including Trijicon ACOG 4x scopes, often paired with a piggybacked Trijicon RMR red dot for close-range transitions. Aimpoint red dot sights, such as the Micro T-1/T-2, are also common, especially on CQB carbines.35
  • Suppressors: The use of sound suppressors is standard practice across almost all weapon systems. Suppressors reduce the weapon’s sound and flash signature, which aids in concealing the shooter’s position, reduces disorientation during CQB, and improves communication within the team.38
  • Aiming/Illumination Modules: Laser/light modules, such as the Laser Light Module Mk3 (LLM Mk3), are standard fitments, providing infrared aiming lasers for use with night vision and white light for target identification.35

Section 8: The Future of the Special Boat Service

The operational environment for the Special Boat Service is entering a period of profound change. The two-decade focus on counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism in the Middle East and Central Asia is being superseded by a return to Great Power Competition (GPC) with peer and near-peer state adversaries.59 This strategic shift will reshape the SBS’s roles, tactics, and technological requirements for the foreseeable future.

8.1 The Shift to Great Power Competition (GPC)

The new strategic era will place a renewed emphasis on the SBS’s high-end, core maritime capabilities, which were often secondary during the land-centric wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In a potential conflict with a technologically advanced adversary possessing sophisticated Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) systems, large conventional naval forces may be held at risk hundreds of miles from shore. In this environment, the future role of the SBS becomes that of operating “inside the bubble.” Inserted covertly by submarine, the SBS will be the critical human sensor and surgical strike asset in the most heavily contested maritime environments, conducting the reconnaissance, targeting, and sabotage necessary to enable long-range strikes from the wider “Integrated Force”.61

This will involve a renewed focus on operations in the “gray zone”—the contested space of hybrid warfare that exists below the threshold of open conflict.62 Missions will likely include clandestine support to partner nations, counter-proxy force operations, and strategic reconnaissance in critical maritime chokepoints and littoral zones, from the High North to the Indo-Pacific.62

8.2 Technological Integration

The future operator will be required not only to be a superb soldier and sailor but also a “system administrator” on the battlefield, managing a suite of personal and remote technologies. The integration of unmanned systems will be critical. Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) will extend the reach and sensory capabilities of an SBS team while reducing risk to personnel.63 These platforms could be used for precursor reconnaissance of a beach, remote surveillance of a target, or even as decoys or weapons platforms.

Furthermore, future special operations will require the seamless integration of cyberspace and electronic warfare (EW) capabilities at the tactical level.65 An SBS team of the future may be tasked with deploying unattended sensors to monitor enemy communications, conducting close-access cyber exploitation, or using organic EW tools to disrupt enemy command and control, all while defending their own networks from attack. This will demand an even higher level of technical proficiency from an already elite force.

8.3 Evolving Threats and Roles

While GPC will be the strategic driver, the SBS will remain essential for addressing a range of other maritime threats. These include increasingly sophisticated and violent piracy, state-sponsored attacks on commercial shipping, as seen with Houthi rebels in the Red Sea, and the protection of critical national infrastructure, which now extends to subsea data cables and energy pipelines.66

The ultimate trajectory is towards a more deeply integrated force, where space-based assets, cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, and conventional military power are networked together.61 The SBS will not be a standalone entity but a vital sensor and effector within this network, providing the ground truth and direct action capabilities that cannot be replicated by remote or standoff systems. The core ethos of “By Strength and Guile,” conceived by a man with a canoe, will continue to adapt and find relevance in an increasingly complex and technological world.

Appendix: Summary Table of Current SBS Small Arms

The following table provides a summary of the primary small arms currently in service with the Special Boat Service.

Weapon DesignationManufacturerCartridgeOperating SystemBarrel Length(s)Role
L119A2 SFIWColt Canada5.56×45mm NATOGas-operated, rotating bolt15.7 inStandard Carbine
L119A2 CQBColt Canada5.56×45mm NATOGas-operated, rotating bolt10 inClose Quarters Battle Carbine
L131A1Glock9×19mm ParabellumShort recoil, striker-fired4.49 inStandard Sidearm
L105A2SIG Sauer9×19mm ParabellumShort recoil, hammer-fired4.4 inSidearm (largely replaced)
L129A1 SharpshooterLewis Machine & Tool7.62×51mm NATOGas impingement, rotating bolt16 inDesignated Marksman Rifle
L115A3 LRRAccuracy International.338 Lapua MagnumBolt-action27 inLong Range Sniper Rifle
L110A2 LMGFN Herstal5.56×45mm NATOGas-operated, open bolt13.7 inLight Machine Gun / SAW


If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Sources Used

  1. Special Boat Service | National Army Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/special-boat
  2. Special Boat Section / Special Boat Squadron (SBS) – Airborne Assault Museum – ParaData, accessed September 6, 2025, https://paradata.org.uk/content/4634644-special-boat-section-special-boat-squadron-sbs
  3. Special Boat Service – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service
  4. ‘Special Boat Section’ | ͏ – Commando Veterans Archive, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.commandoveterans.org/SBS
  5. Special Boat Service (SBS) – Britannica, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Special-Boat-Service
  6. Great Britain’s Special Boat Service – SOFREP, accessed September 6, 2025, https://cms.sofrep.com/allied-special-forces/special-boat-service/
  7. SBS: The Royal Navy’s Special Boat Service – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/sbs-the-royal-navys-special-boat-service/
  8. Special Boat Service (SBS) – Organisation, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-boat-service/organisation/
  9. SBS sail South on HMS Conqueror – Royal Marines History, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.royalmarineshistory.com/post/sbs-sail-south-on-hms-conqueror
  10. Falklands War – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
  11. Special Boat Service | SBS – Operations – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-boat-service/operations/
  12. The SBS During Gulf War I – Behind The Lines … – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-boat-service/operations/gulf-war-1/
  13. Operation Maude – Cutting Iraq’s Communications Cable – Royal Marines History, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.royalmarineshistory.com/post/operation-maude-cutting-iraq-s-communications-cable
  14. Operation Barras – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barras
  15. Operation Barras | National Army Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/operation-barras
  16. SBS Operations in Afghanistan – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-boat-service/operations/afghanistan/
  17. Special Forces Support Group – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_Support_Group
  18. The Special Boat Service | SBS – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-boat-service/
  19. Task Force Black: British Special Forces in Iraq – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/task-force-black-british-special-forces-in-iraq/
  20. Task Force Black – SAS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/task-force-black/
  21. Operation Marlborough – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Marlborough
  22. Better than SAS? Meet the Royal Navy’s feared unit – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9CzUL7S2n8&pp=ygUII2FudGlzdWI%3D
  23. Scuba Diving Gear History: From Bells to Rebreathers – Mexidivers, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.mexidivers.com/blog/scuba-diving-history
  24. The Evolution of Scuba Diving Equipment: From Past to Present …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.balifundiving.com/the-evolution-of-scuba-diving-equipment/
  25. Diving Rebreathers – StatPearls – NCBI Bookshelf, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK482469/
  26. Rebreather – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather
  27. Oxygen Toxicity and Special Operations Forces Diving: Hidden and Dangerous – PMC, accessed September 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5524741/
  28. SEAL Delivery Vehicle – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Delivery_Vehicle
  29. SEAL Delivery Vehicles – National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.navysealmuseum.org/exhibits/seal-delivery-vehicles-sdv-manned-submersibles-for-special-operations
  30. British SBS Archimedes swimmer delivery vehicle – Covert Shores, accessed September 6, 2025, http://www.hisutton.com/SBS_Archimedes_SDV.html
  31. Minisubmarines for the undetected insertion and extraction of naval forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://monitorulapararii.ro/minisubmarines-for-the-undetected-insertion-and-extraction-of-naval-forces-1-28551
  32. SBS To Get New Minisubs | SWCS – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/2018-10-29-sbs-to-get-new-minisubs.php
  33. US-Navy-SEAL-Delivery-Vehicle-SDV-Mk-8-Mod-0 – H I Sutton – Covert Shores, accessed September 6, 2025, http://www.hisutton.com/US-Navy-SEAL-Delivery-Vehicle-SDV-Mk-8-Mod-0.html
  34. British Military Weapons – HMG – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/weapons/HMG/
  35. SAS – Weapons – C8 Carbine – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/c8.php
  36. C8 Canadian 5.56mm Carbine Rifle – ODIN, accessed September 6, 2025, https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/a0d421202404261e95397734b46719db
  37. UK Special Forces’ M16 Variant: the L119A1 – Forgotten Weapons, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.forgottenweapons.com/uk-special-forces-m16-variant-the-l119a1/
  38. Ministry of Defence Announces Contract Renewal with Colt Canada for Support of C8 Rifle., accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.morganryder.com/blogs/ministry-of-defence-announces-contract-renewal-with-colt-canada-for-support-of-c8-rifle/
  39. Glock 17 Gen 4/L131A1 pistol – Airborne Assault Museum – ParaData, accessed September 6, 2025, https://paradata.org.uk/content/4663889-glock-17-gen-4l131a1-pistol
  40. L131A1 Glock 17 Pistol – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/weapons/glock-pistol/
  41. SBS Weapons – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-boat-service/weapons/
  42. SIG SAUER L105A2 – GOV.UK, accessed September 6, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025319/Sig_9mm_FS.pdf
  43. SAS – Weapons – Sig Sauer P226 – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/sig-sauer-p226.php
  44. Heckler & Koch MP5 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_MP5
  45. SAS – Weapons – MP5 – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/mp5.php
  46. L129A1 Sharpshooter Rifle – The British Army, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/small-arms-and-support-weapons/l129a1-sharpshooter-rifle/
  47. L129A1 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L129A1
  48. L115a3 Long Range Rifle – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/weapons/l115a3-long-range-rifle/
  49. L115A3 Long Range ‘Sniper’ Rifle | The British Army, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/small-arms-and-support-weapons/l115a3-long-range-sniper-rifle/
  50. L115A3: Is This British Sniper Rifle the Best In the World Today? – The National Interest, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/l115a3-british-sniper-rifle-best-world-today-184516
  51. minimi 5.56 l110a2 – GOV.UK, accessed September 6, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025314/Minimi_LMG_FS.pdf
  52. Minimi – British Military Weapons – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/weapons/minimi/
  53. Heavy Machine Gun | The British Army, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/small-arms-and-support-weapons/heavy-machine-gun/
  54. SAS Weapons – UGL Grenade Launcher – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/UGL.php
  55. Heckler & Koch AG-C/EGLM – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_AG-C/EGLM
  56. List of equipment of the British Army – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_British_Army
  57. Military Optics: The Red Dots & Scopes Soldiers Use on the Battlefield, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.pewpewtactical.com/military-optics-red-dots-lvpos-more-guide/
  58. What place, if any, do suppressors occupy for the armed forces? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/g5dpzs/what_place_if_any_do_suppressors_occupy_for_the/
  59. Maritime Security and Great Power Competition: Maintaining the US-led International Order, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.cna.org/analyses/2020/06/maintaining-the-us-led-international-order
  60. Special Operations Forces in an Era of Great Power Competition | Johns Hopkins SAIS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sais.jhu.edu/kissinger/programs-and-projects/kissinger-center-papers/special-operations-forces-era-great-power-competition
  61. The Strategic Defence Review and the Challenge of Turning Ambition into Action – RUSI, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/strategic-defence-review-and-challenge-turning-ambition-action
  62. The Haze Gray Zone: Great Power Competition at Sea | Proceedings, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/january/haze-gray-zone-great-power-competition-sea
  63. Debate on the Future of War at Sea – RUSI, accessed September 6, 2025, https://my.rusi.org/events/debate-on-the-future-of-war-at-sea.html
  64. JUST IN: Navy’s First ‘Extra’ Large Unmanned Sub to Go Underwater ‘Very Soon’, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/1/30/just-in-navys-first-extra-large-unmanned-sub-to-go-underwater-very-soon
  65. Senior Official Outlines Future Priorities for Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4179258/senior-official-outlines-future-priorities-for-special-ops/
  66. The State of Maritime Supply-Chain Threats – CSIS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/state-maritime-supply-chain-threats
  67. Future Conflict Programme | Royal United Services Institute, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/projects/future-conflict-programme

Who Dares Wins: An Analytical History of the 22 Special Air Service and the Evolution of its Doctrine, Tactics, and Materiel

The formation of the British Special Air Service (SAS) was not a preordained development but a pragmatic military innovation born from the unique strategic and tactical challenges of the Second World War’s North African Campaign. Its genesis was driven by the frustration of a few forward-thinking officers with the limitations of conventional military doctrine and a recognition that the vast, seemingly empty desert battlespace offered an undefended flank for a new form of warfare. The unit’s early years were characterized by a rapid and often brutal process of trial and error, which forged a doctrine of deep penetration raiding, tactical flexibility, and operator-level innovation that would define its ethos for decades to come.

1.1 The Stirling Vision: From Commando Frustration to Deep Penetration Raiding

The strategic situation in North Africa in 1941 was one of grinding attrition, with large conventional armies clashing along a narrow coastal strip.1 For Lieutenant David Stirling, a junior officer serving with No. 8 (Guards) Commando, the existing structure of warfare was deeply inefficient.2 He observed that large, cumbersome Commando raids, numbering in the hundreds of men, were being deployed to attack single, heavily defended objectives, often with high casualties and limited strategic impact. The majority of the force was consumed with its own protection, leaving only a small fraction to conduct the actual mission.4

Stirling’s core concept, refined while recovering from a parachuting injury, was a radical inversion of this principle.5 He reasoned that the mechanised nature of the war had created a critical vulnerability: the Axis forces’ long and exposed supply lines and, more importantly, their numerous rear-echelon airfields. These high-value targets were essential to the enemy war effort but were often lightly defended.1 Stirling proposed that a small, highly trained team of four or five men, possessing the advantage of surprise, could infiltrate deep behind enemy lines and achieve strategic effects disproportionate to their size by destroying dozens of aircraft or vital supply dumps in a single night.2

Convinced that his idea would be stifled by mid-level bureaucracy, Stirling bypassed the conventional chain of command and gained an audience with the Deputy Chief of Staff, Major General Neil Ritchie, and subsequently the Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Sir Claude Auchinleck.2 Auchinleck endorsed the plan, authorizing Stirling to recruit a force of six officers and 60 enlisted men.2 To deceive Axis intelligence, the new unit was given the deliberately misleading name “L Detachment, Special Air Service Brigade,” leveraging an existing deception plan to create the illusion of a full airborne brigade operating in the theater.9

The initial cadre was hand-picked from the remnants of the recently disbanded Layforce Commandos.2 Stirling sought men who demonstrated independence, ingenuity, physical fitness, and a high standard of discipline.2 Among the most critical early members were Lieutenant ‘Jock’ Lewes, who became the unit’s principal training officer and tactical innovator, and Lieutenant Paddy Mayne, a formidable combat leader who would later command the regiment.7 Together, these men established the foundational ethos of the SAS, encapsulated in the motto personally chosen by Stirling: “Who Dares Wins”.2

1.2 Tactical Evolution: The Failure of Parachutes and the LRDG Symbiosis

The initial doctrine for L Detachment centered on airborne insertion. The plan was to parachute teams into the desert, far behind enemy lines, from where they would proceed on foot to attack their targets.1 This concept was put to the test in November 1941 with the unit’s first mission, Operation Squatter. The operation was designed to support the broader Operation Crusader offensive by attacking Axis airfields at Gazala and Timimi.13

The mission was a catastrophic failure. Launched into a severe desert storm, the parachute drops were widely scattered, and equipment containers were lost.4 Of the 53 men who jumped, only 21 returned; the rest were killed or captured, and not a single enemy aircraft was destroyed.7 This disastrous debut demonstrated the profound unreliability of parachute insertion in the desert environment with the technology of the time. The failure of its primary doctrine could have spelled the end of the nascent unit.

However, this initial catastrophe became the single most important catalyst in the SAS’s early development. It forced an immediate and pragmatic re-evaluation of tactics, demonstrating a core principle of the unit: doctrine is subordinate to battlefield reality, and failure is a data point for rapid adaptation. The survivors of Operation Squatter were picked up by the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG), a highly specialized British unit renowned for its expertise in deep desert navigation and reconnaissance.7 This encounter led to a symbiotic partnership that would define the SAS’s success in North Africa.

Abandoning the flawed airborne concept, the SAS adopted the LRDG as its primary method of transportation.1 The LRDG’s specially modified trucks and expert navigators became the “Libyan Desert Taxi Service,” delivering SAS raiding parties to points near their objectives and, crucially, recovering them afterward.1 This shift in tactics yielded immediate and spectacular results. Just one month after the failure of Operation Squatter, LRDG-transported SAS teams attacked three airfields in Libya, destroying over 60 Axis aircraft without a single SAS loss.10 The partnership proved that the core concept of deep penetration raiding was sound; it was only the method of insertion that had been flawed. The failure of the first mission directly led to the adoption of a superior tactic that became the new standard operating procedure.

1.3 The Rise of the Armed Jeep: Pioneering Mobile Firepower

The early successful raids conducted with the LRDG were typically dismounted operations. SAS teams would be dropped several miles from their target, approach on foot under the cover of darkness, place their explosive charges, and withdraw to a pre-arranged rendezvous point for extraction.8 While effective, this method was still reliant on stealth and limited the amount of ordnance that could be brought to bear.

Beginning in the summer of 1942, the SAS underwent another tactical evolution, acquiring its own fleet of American Willys Jeeps.7 This allowed the unit to develop a new and more aggressive tactic: the high-speed, vehicle-mounted raid. Instead of stealthily placing bombs, SAS patrols began to storm enemy airfields at night, driving in formation with guns blazing to strafe and destroy parked aircraft with concentrated machine-gun fire before rapidly withdrawing back into the desert.7 This represented a fundamental shift from sabotage to direct assault.

This new tactic was enabled by extensive in-theater modification of the Jeeps, a process that showcased the unit’s culture of operator-level innovation. The vehicles were stripped of non-essential parts like windscreens and rear seats to reduce weight and increase payload capacity for fuel, water, and ammunition.15 Water condensers were fitted to the radiators to conserve precious water in the arid environment.17 Most importantly, the Jeeps were transformed into heavily armed fighting platforms. Mounts were fabricated to carry scavenged aircraft machine guns, creating a light, fast, and exceptionally powerful weapon system that was perfectly suited to the hit-and-run tactics being developed.16

1.4 The Desert Arsenal: An Engineering Analysis of Key Weaponry

The effectiveness of the SAS in the desert was directly tied to its innovative application of specialized and often improvised weaponry. The unit did not simply use standard-issue equipment; it identified tactical needs and engineered immediate, effective solutions using available resources.

Vehicle-Mounted Weapons

The primary armament for the SAS Jeep was the Vickers ‘K’ Gas Operated (GO) machine gun, a.303 caliber weapon typically mounted in single or twin configurations.16 Originally designed as an aircraft observer’s gun, the Vickers K was scavenged from obsolete Royal Air Force aircraft like the Bristol Bombay and Fairey Battle.16 From an engineering perspective, it was an ideal choice for the SAS’s new vehicle assault tactic due to its exceptionally high cyclic rate of fire, estimated at 1,000−1,200 rounds per minute. This allowed a small number of Jeeps to deliver an immense volume of suppressive and destructive fire in a very short period, overwhelming defenders and maximizing damage during a high-speed pass. The Jeeps were also frequently armed with the American M2 Browning.50 caliber heavy machine gun, which provided a devastating anti-materiel capability against aircraft engines and light vehicles.17

The Lewes Bomb

For dismounted sabotage, the standard-issue demolition charges were often too cumbersome for a small team to carry in sufficient quantity.19 In a clear example of field-expedient engineering, Lieutenant Jock Lewes developed a purpose-built charge that became known as the Lewes Bomb.4 This device was a combined blast and incendiary weapon, weighing approximately 1 pound, making it light enough for a single operator to carry several.19

Its composition was a carefully formulated mixture designed for maximum effect against aircraft 19:

  • Primary Charge: Approximately 1 pound (450 g) of Nobel 808 plastic explosive provided the blast component.
  • Incendiary Agent: A mixture of roughly 1/4 pound (110 g) of thermite and a small amount of diesel oil or motor oil.
  • Initiation: A two-ounce dry guncotton booster was inserted into the mass, initiated by a pencil detonator with a time delay (typically 30 seconds to 30 minutes).19

The device was designed to be placed directly on a vulnerable part of an aircraft, such as the wing root above the fuel tanks or inside the cockpit.19 Upon detonation, the plastic explosive would rupture the thin aluminum airframe and fuel tanks. The intense heat from the subsequent thermite reaction would then ignite the exposed aviation fuel, ensuring the complete destruction of the target.19 The Lewes Bomb was a simple, reliable, and devastatingly effective tool that perfectly embodied the SAS’s innovative and pragmatic approach to warfare.23

Personal Weapons

For personal defense and close-quarters work during raids, SAS operators were equipped with the standard Allied small arms of the period. The American Thompson submachine gun was heavily favored for its firepower in close-range engagements.23 The Colt M1911A1.45 caliber pistol was a common sidearm.17 For silent killing and utility, the Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife was standard issue for British raiding forces, including the SAS.17

Section 2: The European Crucible (1943-1945)

Following the successful conclusion of the North African Campaign, the Special Air Service underwent a significant transformation. The operational environment shifted from the vast, open deserts of Libya and Egypt to the verdant, populated, and more restrictive terrain of Italy, France, and the Low Countries. This change necessitated a profound evolution in the Regiment’s structure, mission, and tactics. The SAS adapted from a small, semi-independent desert raiding force into a larger, multinational brigade formation, proving that its core principles of deep penetration and strategic disruption were not tied to a single environment. This period also saw the SAS develop skills in unconventional warfare and liaison with indigenous forces, foreshadowing its primary post-war role.

2.1 Expansion and Reorganization: The SAS Brigade

The proven effectiveness of the SAS in North Africa led to its expansion. In April 1943, the original 1st SAS was reorganized into the Special Raiding Squadron (SRS) under the command of the now-Major Paddy Mayne, while a second regiment, 2nd SAS, was raised in Algeria under the command of Lieutenant Colonel William Stirling, David’s brother.2 These units conducted raids in Sicily and Italy throughout 1943.9

In early 1944, in preparation for the invasion of Northwest Europe, 1st and 2nd SAS returned to the United Kingdom and were formally grouped into a new, larger formation: the SAS Brigade.11 This marked a significant step in the unit’s institutionalization, bringing it under the umbrella of the Army Air Corps.11 The brigade’s composition was notably multinational, reflecting the Allied war effort. It comprised the two British regiments (1st and 2nd SAS), two Free French parachute regiments (redesignated 3rd and 4th SAS), and a Belgian Independent Parachute Company (which became 5th SAS).9 This expansion transformed the SAS from a maverick detachment into a formal military brigade of several thousand men, tasked with playing a key strategic role in the liberation of Europe.

2.2 New Battlefields, New Tactics: Sabotage, Liaison, and Reconnaissance

The operational environment of Europe was fundamentally different from that of North Africa. The dense bocage of Normandy, the forests of the Vosges, and the mountains of Italy rendered the large-scale, vehicle-centric raiding columns of the desert largely impractical.28 The higher density of enemy troops and the presence of civilian populations demanded a shift towards more covert and precise methods.

The primary role of the SAS Brigade during and after Operation Overlord was to operate deep behind German lines to disrupt communications, delay the movement of enemy reinforcements toward the Normandy beachhead, and provide support and liaison to local resistance movements, particularly the French Maquis.27 This led to a significant evolution in tactics:

  • Insertion: Parachute insertion, which had proved disastrous in the desert, became the primary and most effective method of deploying teams deep into occupied territory.27
  • Mission Sets: The focus shifted from destroying aircraft on the ground to a broader range of unconventional warfare tasks. These included large-scale railway sabotage to paralyze German logistics (e.g., Operation Maple Driftwood in Italy, Operation Pistol in France), ambushing German road convoys and retreating columns (e.g., Operation Kipling), and gathering critical intelligence on enemy dispositions.27
  • Liaison and Unconventional Warfare: A critical new role was acting as a link between the Allied high command and local partisan groups. Small “Jedburgh” teams, often comprising British, French, and American personnel, were dropped in to arm, train, and coordinate resistance activities.28 This experience in working with and through indigenous forces was a crucial development, laying the doctrinal groundwork for the Regiment’s future counter-insurgency expertise.
  • Mobility: While many operations were conducted on foot, requiring immense endurance to cover long distances through hostile territory, the armed Jeep was not entirely abandoned. In areas where the terrain and tactical situation permitted, SAS squadrons used their heavily armed vehicles for reconnaissance and rapid “hit-and-run” attacks, particularly in the later stages of the campaign as Allied forces advanced through France, Belgium, and into Germany (e.g., Operation Howard, Operation Archway).27

2.3 Adapting the Arsenal for Europe

The change in tactics and environment necessitated an adaptation of the Regiment’s equipment. While the core weaponry remained, it was augmented and modified to meet new threats and operational requirements.

  • Vehicle Modifications: The Jeeps deployed in Europe were more robustly prepared for a higher-threat environment than their desert predecessors. They were frequently up-armored with armored glass shields for the driver and gunner, armored louvres to protect the radiator, and sometimes rear armor plates to protect the fuel tanks and crew from fire from the rear.18 The standard armament of multiple Vickers K guns and Browning machine guns was retained, providing formidable mobile firepower for reconnaissance and raiding tasks.18
  • Heavier Support Weapons: The shift towards more static ambush operations and the need to engage fortified enemy positions required greater organic firepower than what individual soldiers could carry. Operational records from the Italian campaign, such as Operation Galia, show that SAS units were supplied by parachute drop with Vickers Mk I medium machine guns and 3-inch mortars.18 These crew-served weapons provided the sustained, indirect, and heavy direct fire capability needed for ambushing enemy columns and defending against counter-attacks. In the mountainous terrain of Italy, these heavy weapons and their ammunition had to be transported by mules, highlighting the logistical challenges of operating deep behind enemy lines.18 This adoption of heavier support weapons marked a significant evolution from the light raiding force of the early desert days.

The successful transition from a vehicle-centric desert force to a multi-faceted light infantry and reconnaissance force specializing in sabotage and unconventional warfare in Europe demonstrated the inherent adaptability of the SAS concept. It proved that the Regiment’s value lay not in a specific tactic, like the Jeep raid, but in its core principle: the deployment of small, elite teams behind enemy lines to achieve strategic effects.

Section 3: Reinvention – The Counter-Insurgency Era (1947-1980)

The end of the Second World War brought a temporary end to the Special Air Service. However, the geopolitical landscape of the Cold War, characterized by wars of decolonization and communist-backed insurgencies, created a new and urgent requirement for a force skilled in unconventional, low-intensity conflict. This period marked the most critical transformation in the Regiment’s history. It was functionally a second founding, leading to the establishment of the modern, regular army 22 SAS Regiment and forging its identity as the world’s preeminent counter-insurgency (COIN) force. The campaigns in the jungles of Malaya and the mountains of Oman were not merely deployments; they were crucibles that defined the Regiment’s primary skillset for the next half-century, shifting its focus from conventional raiding to the complex, population-centric art of defeating guerrilla movements.

3.1 From Disbandment to Rebirth: The Malayan Scouts and the Forging of 22 SAS

In the post-war drawdown of 1945, the British government saw no continuing need for a specialized raiding force, and the wartime SAS Brigade was summarily disbanded.9 The name and ethos, however, were preserved in 1947 when the Artists Rifles, a Territorial Army (TA) reserve unit, was re-designated as the 21st Special Air Service Regiment (Artists Rifles).9 For a time, the SAS existed only as a part-time reserve force.

The catalyst for its revival as a regular army unit was the Malayan Emergency, which began in 1948. The armed wing of the Malayan Communist Party, the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), launched a guerrilla campaign targeting the economic infrastructure of the British colony.32 The British Army, trained for conventional warfare in Europe, found itself ill-equipped to combat an elusive enemy that operated from deep within the dense, trackless jungle.32

This created an urgent need for a specialized deep-penetration jungle warfare unit. In 1950, Brigadier Mike Calvert, a veteran of the Chindits in Burma, was tasked with forming a new unit called the “Malayan Scouts (SAS)”.9 The unit had a multinational character from the outset, comprising ‘A’ Squadron, formed from volunteers already in the Far East; ‘B’ Squadron, which was a deployed squadron from 21 SAS; and ‘C’ Squadron, made up of 100 volunteers from Rhodesia.9

The immediate and profound success of the Malayan Scouts in taking the fight to the insurgents in their jungle sanctuaries demonstrated the clear need for a permanent, regular army SAS regiment. Consequently, in 1952, the Malayan Scouts were formally absorbed into the British Army’s order of battle and re-designated as the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, the direct ancestor of the modern regular unit.9 This marked the only time in the British Army’s history that a regular unit has been formed from a Territorial Army unit.9 It was during this formative period that Lieutenant Colonel John Woodhouse, a key figure in the unit’s development, was tasked with establishing the formal, brutally demanding selection and training course that remains the gateway to the Regiment to this day.13

3.2 Mastering the Jungle: Deep Patrols and Counter-Insurgency in Malaya

The tactical problem in Malaya was how to defeat an insurgency that drew its strength from the civilian population (the Min Yuen network) and used the impenetrable jungle as its base and refuge.32 The SAS’s solution was to turn the jungle itself into a weapon against the insurgents. They pioneered the tactic of long-range, deep-penetration patrols, with small four- or five-man teams remaining in the jungle for weeks or even months at a time.13 The objective was to relentlessly hunt the MNLA in their own heartland, destroying their camps and disrupting their supply lines, thereby denying them the sanctuary they needed to survive.13

Mastering this environment required a complete re-engineering of the Regiment’s skills:

  • Junglecraft and Tracking: Operators had to become masters of jungle survival, navigation, and patrol techniques. A crucial element of their success was the integration of indigenous trackers, primarily from the Iban people of Borneo, whose innate jungle skills were an invaluable asset in locating the elusive enemy.13
  • Sustainment and Insertion: To support these extended patrols, the SAS developed novel techniques for aerial resupply by helicopter and parachute.13 This included the hazardous practice of “treejumping,” where a trooper would parachute into the high jungle canopy, allow his parachute to become entangled, and then lower himself to the ground on a rope.13
  • “Hearts and Minds”: The SAS’s kinetic operations were a component of the broader British COIN strategy, famously articulated by General Sir Gerald Templer as a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the population.32 The goal was to isolate the insurgents from their civilian support base. SAS patrols often participated in this effort directly, with medics providing medical care to remote villages and establishing trust, which in turn generated valuable intelligence.13

3.3 Whispering in the Sands: Firqat Operations and COIN in Dhofar

The lessons learned in the jungles of Malaya were refined and adapted for a different environment in the mountains of Oman during the Dhofar Rebellion (1962-1976). There, 22 SAS squadrons were deployed to support the Sultan of Oman against a communist-backed insurgency, known as the Adoo, operating in the rugged Jebel of Dhofar province.38

While the SAS conducted direct action missions, their most significant and enduring contribution was the development and implementation of the Firqat strategy.38 This was a sophisticated expression of population-centric counter-insurgency. The SAS established a program to grant amnesty to surrendered enemy personnel (SEPs) and then recruit them into pro-government irregular tribal units, known as Firqats (Arabic for ‘unit’).40

Small SAS teams, known as British Army Training Teams (BATTs), lived with, trained, armed, and led these Firqat units on operations against their former comrades.38 This strategy acted as a powerful force multiplier. The Firqats possessed intimate knowledge of the local terrain, culture, and the enemy’s methods, providing unparalleled intelligence and legitimacy.40 The SAS troopers acted as advisors, liaisons, and combat leaders, embedding with the local forces in a model of unconventional warfare that is now central to the doctrine of modern special operations forces worldwide.

As in Malaya, this military effort was fully integrated with a “hearts and minds” campaign. SAS-led Civil Action Teams (CATs) moved through the mountains, providing medical treatment to villagers and veterinary care for their livestock, helping to dig wells, and demonstrating the benefits of supporting the government.38 The SAS’s success in Dhofar was a testament to its mastery of indirect warfare, understanding that the most decisive weapon in a counter-insurgency is often not a rifle, but the trust and support of the local population.

3.4 The Cold War Arsenal: Adapting to New Environments

The shift to jungle and mountain counter-insurgency drove an evolution in the Regiment’s small arms, prioritizing reliability in harsh conditions and, increasingly, lighter weight for long-duration patrols.

  • L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle (SLR): The standard rifle for the SAS throughout much of this period was the 7.62x51mm NATO L1A1 SLR, the British-produced variant of the FN FAL.44 It was a robust, reliable, and powerful weapon. Its hard-hitting cartridge was well-suited for penetrating jungle foliage and for engagements at longer ranges in the mountains of Oman.46
  • Sterling Submachine Gun: The 9x19mm Sterling SMG (designated L2A3) was a common weapon for patrol commanders and for close-quarters engagements.47 Its suppressed variant, the L34A1, was a key tool for covert operations, used for silent sentry removal and reconnaissance during the Falklands War.47
  • Early Adoption of the AR-15: A significant development occurred during the Indonesian Confrontation in Borneo (1963-1966). The SAS, finding the L1A1 SLR heavy and cumbersome for long jungle patrols, became one of the first military units in the world to adopt and use the 5.56x45mm Colt Armalite AR-15 (specifically, the Colt 602 model).49 The primary advantage was the significant weight savings of both the rifle and its ammunition. This allowed a trooper on an extended patrol to carry a substantially larger combat load of ammunition compared to the 7.62mm SLR, a critical factor in the deep jungle.49 This early, independent adoption of a non-standard weapon system to gain a specific tactical advantage is a hallmark of the Regiment’s pragmatic approach to materiel.

Section 4: The Black Kit – Counter-Terrorism and Global Intervention (1980-2001)

The late 20th century saw the Special Air Service develop a dual identity. While continuing to hone its skills in counter-insurgency and special reconnaissance, the Regiment was tasked with confronting the rising threat of international terrorism. This led to the creation of a new, highly specialized capability in hostage rescue and counter-terrorism, a skillset that would thrust the unit from the shadows into the global spotlight. This era demonstrated the SAS’s unique institutional flexibility, proving its ability to maintain world-class proficiency in two almost entirely distinct forms of warfare: the short-duration, high-intensity violence of counter-terrorism and the sustained, arduous campaigning of conventional special operations.

4.1 A New Threat: The Formation of the Counter Revolutionary Warfare (CRW) Wing

The wave of international terrorism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, exemplified by aircraft hijackings and events like the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, presented a new security challenge that conventional military and police forces were not equipped to handle. In response, the British government tasked the SAS with developing a dedicated domestic counter-terrorism capability.51

In the early 1970s, the Regiment established its Counter Revolutionary Warfare (CRW) wing.51 This specialized element was charged with developing the unique doctrine, tactics, techniques, and technologies required for hostage rescue operations.51 The CRW wing’s responsibility is to provide continuous, intensive training to the Regiment’s four Sabre Squadrons (A, B, D, and G), which rotate through the counter-terrorism (CT) standby role.52 One squadron is always held at high readiness to respond to a terrorist incident within the United Kingdom.53

Training is relentless and realistic, centered around the “Killing House,” a specialized facility at the SAS headquarters in Hereford. This structure features movable walls and rubber-lined rooms, allowing assault teams to practice dynamic entry and room-clearing techniques using live ammunition to achieve the highest standards of speed and surgical precision.53 The CRW wing’s curriculum covers a range of scenarios, including assaults on aircraft, trains, and buses (known as “tubular assaults”), as well as complex building clearances.53

4.2 Operation Nimrod: The Siege that Defined Modern Counter-Terrorism (1980)

On April 30, 1980, the CRW wing’s secretive preparations were put to the ultimate test. Six armed men, members of the Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan, stormed the Iranian Embassy at Prince’s Gate, London, taking 26 people hostage.55 After a tense six-day siege, negotiations broke down when the terrorists murdered a hostage and threw his body out of the embassy.54 With the lives of the remaining hostages in imminent danger, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave the order for the SAS to execute a rescue mission, codenamed Operation Nimrod.55

The assault, which unfolded in the full view of the world’s media, was a clinical demonstration of the CRW doctrine of “Speed, Aggression, Surprise”.57

  • Simultaneous Entry: Multiple assault teams struck the building from all angles at once to overwhelm the terrorists. Teams abseiled from the roof to force entry through second-floor windows, while other teams blew their way through armored windows and doors at the rear of the building and stormed the front balcony.55
  • Shock and Disorientation: The assault was initiated with explosive breaching charges and the deployment of G60 stun grenades, or “flash-bangs”—a device developed by the SAS’s own Operations Research Unit.59 The combined effect of the explosions, the blinding flashes, and the deafening noise was designed to disorient and paralyze the terrorists, creating a critical window of opportunity for the assaulters.59
  • Violence of Action: Moving with practiced speed, the assault teams cleared the 56-room embassy, systematically neutralizing the threat. The entire operation lasted just 17 minutes, from the first explosion to the securing of the last hostage.57 In the end, 19 hostages were rescued, and five of the six terrorists were killed.58

The equipment used was highly specialized for the Close Quarter Battle (CQB) environment. Assaulters were clad in black Nomex flame-retardant overalls and wore S6 respirators to protect against CS gas and the effects of their own stun grenades.59 Their primary weapon was the German-made Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun, chambered in 9x19mm.59 The MP5 was chosen for its compactness, controllability in full-automatic fire, and the lower risk of over-penetration from its pistol-caliber round in a crowded environment where hostages were present. Their sidearm was typically the Browning Hi-Power pistol (or its Canadian-made Inglis L9A1 variant).59

Operation Nimrod was a resounding success that fundamentally and permanently altered the SAS’s public profile. It transformed the unit from an obscure entity into a household name, a symbol of lethal efficiency and national resolve.55 While this brought immense prestige, it also shattered the Regiment’s anonymity, creating a public mystique that would at times conflict with the operational necessity for secrecy.

4.3 Return to Conventional Warfare: Reconnaissance and Raiding in the Falklands (1982)

Just two years after the urban counter-terrorism triumph in London, the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 plunged the SAS back into a conventional war, demanding a completely different set of skills. D and G Squadrons were deployed with the British Naval Task Force, tasked with missions that echoed the Regiment’s original WWII roles.61

The Regiment’s primary function in the conflict was deep-level special reconnaissance. Small, four-man patrols were inserted by helicopter onto the islands, often far from their objectives and in appalling weather conditions.61 Their mission was to establish covert observation posts (OPs) and report on Argentine troop strengths, dispositions, and movements. The terrain offered virtually no cover, forcing the troopers to dig shallow scrapes and endure extreme cold and wet for days on end.61 The intelligence they provided was invaluable to the commanders of the main British landing force.61

The SAS also conducted direct action raids. The most significant of these was the attack on the Argentine airfield on Pebble Island on the night of May 14-15. Approximately 45 men from D Squadron were landed by helicopter and, in a classic SAS-style raid, destroyed eleven enemy aircraft on the ground using explosive charges and fire from M203 grenade launchers and M72 LAW rockets.61 Later in the campaign, SAS squadrons fought a series of sharp skirmishes against Argentine special forces to seize and hold the vital high ground of Mount Kent ahead of the main British advance on Port Stanley.61

The weaponry used in the Falklands reflected the demands of conventional infantry combat. While the standard British L1A1 SLR was used, many SAS troopers preferred the American M16 rifle for its lighter weight, higher ammunition capacity, and full-automatic fire capability.61 Support weapons included the 7.62mm GPMG, mortars, and Milan wire-guided anti-tank missiles.61 Critically, the SAS was also equipped with the American-made FIM-92 Stinger, a man-portable air-defense system (MANPADS). Despite limited training on the new system, an SAS trooper successfully used a Stinger to shoot down an Argentine Pucara ground-attack aircraft, demonstrating the unit’s ability to quickly master and deploy new technology.61

4.4 Back to the Desert: Scud Hunting in the First Gulf War (1991)

The 1991 Gulf War saw the SAS return to the deserts of the Middle East, and in a remarkable historical echo, to its original mission of deep penetration vehicle-borne raiding. Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, A, B, and D Squadrons of 22 SAS were deployed as part of Operation Granby.64 When Saddam Hussein began launching mobile-launched Scud ballistic missiles at Israel, the SAS was given a critical strategic mission: to infiltrate western Iraq to find and destroy the elusive launchers, a task at which coalition air power had proven ineffective.64

This mission precipitated a direct revival of the Regiment’s WWII desert tactics. A and D Squadrons were organized into “fighting columns” of up to a dozen heavily armed Land Rover 110 vehicles, supported by Unimog trucks for logistics.64 These columns would drive deep into the Iraqi desert, traveling by night and establishing camouflaged lay-up positions (LUPs) during the day.64 Their missions included ambushing Iraqi supply routes, destroying communications infrastructure, and, most importantly, locating Scud convoys and either attacking them directly or calling in coalition air strikes.64

The Land Rovers were mobile arsenals, equipped with a formidable array of weaponry to provide overwhelming firepower. Typical armament included.50 caliber M2 Browning heavy machine guns, 7.62mm GPMGs, Milan anti-tank missile launchers, and Mk 19 40mm automatic grenade launchers.64

While the vehicle columns were highly successful, the campaign also included foot-mobile patrols inserted by helicopter to conduct reconnaissance on main supply routes. One such patrol, B Squadron’s Bravo Two Zero, became infamous. Compromised deep in enemy territory and hampered by faulty communications and severe weather, the eight-man patrol was forced into a long escape and evasion operation that resulted in three members killed, four captured, and only one escaping to Syria.27 The fate of this patrol highlighted the extreme risks of dismounted operations in the open desert and the critical importance of reliable mobility and communications.

Section 5: The Modern Regiment and its Small Arms (2001-Present)

The post-9/11 era has been defined by a global, persistent, and asymmetric conflict against transnational terrorist networks and insurgencies. For the 22 Special Air Service, this has meant over two decades of continuous, high-tempo combat operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. This period has driven a significant evolution in tactics, techniques, and procedures, focusing on intelligence-led, high-precision raids. This operational demand, in turn, has accelerated the development and procurement of highly modular, reliable, and specialized small arms, leading to a clear divergence between the equipment of UK Special Forces (UKSF) and that of the conventional British Army.

5.1 The Post-9/11 Landscape: Task Force Black and the Manhunting Mission

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the SAS was heavily engaged in the ensuing conflicts. Initial operations in Afghanistan in late 2001 (Operation Determine, Operation Trent) involved reconnaissance and direct action against Al Qaeda and Taliban command and control facilities.9 However, it was in Iraq from 2003 that the Regiment’s modern role was truly defined.

In Iraq, the SAS formed the core of a UKSF special missions task force, operating alongside US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) counterparts. This task force, known variously as Task Force Black and later Task Force Knight, was charged with a relentless “manhunting” mission: to counter the powerful Sunni and Shia insurgencies by systematically dismantling their networks.31 The primary method was the conduct of intelligence-driven, short-notice “capture/kill” raids targeting high-value individuals—bomb makers, financiers, and insurgent leaders.31

This mission set placed unique demands on the operators and their equipment. The operational tempo was exceptionally high, with teams often conducting multiple raids in a single night, moving rapidly from one target to the next as actionable intelligence was developed from captured personnel or materials.31 Operations took place in complex urban environments, requiring a mastery of Close Quarter Battle (CQB) and vehicle-borne tactics. This environment drove the requirement for weapon systems that were compact, ergonomic, supremely reliable, and, above all, modular, allowing an operator to configure his weapon perfectly for the specific demands of the next mission.

5.2 Current Armoury: A Detailed Technical Analysis of 22 SAS Small Arms

The modern SAS operator selects their equipment based on the principle of using the best available tool for the task, rather than adhering to a standardized inventory. This has led to the adoption of a suite of weapon systems, primarily of North American and European origin, that are optimized for special operations.

5.2.1 Primary Carbines: The L119A2 and SIG Sauer MCX

While the conventional British Army is issued the 5.56mm SA80/L85 bullpup rifle, UKSF has consistently preferred the ergonomics and modularity of the AR-15 platform.

  • Colt Canada C8 (L119A1/A2): The primary carbine of the SAS is the L119, the British military designation for the Colt Canada (formerly Diemaco) C8 carbine.49 The current in-service variant is the
    L119A2, which was adopted around 2014.68

Technical Specifications:

  • Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO.69
  • Operating System: Direct Impingement Gas.
  • Barrel Lengths: Typically issued in two configurations: a 10-inch barrel for CQB and a 15.7-inch barrel for general-purpose use.70
  • Key Features: The L119A2’s most distinctive feature is its monolithic upper receiver, where the handguard and receiver are a single, continuous piece of forged aluminum.70 This design provides exceptional rigidity, ensuring that optics and laser aiming modules mounted on the handguard do not lose their zero, a critical requirement for precision shooting. The weapon also features ambidextrous controls, a cold-hammer-forged barrel for longevity and accuracy, and a reputation for outstanding reliability.71
  • SIG Sauer MCX (L143A1): The SIG MCX is a newer, highly modular platform that has been adopted by UKSF, including the SAS, particularly for counter-terrorism and covert roles.72

Technical Specifications:

  • Caliber Options: 5.56x45mm NATO and.300 AAC Blackout.72 The.300 Blackout cartridge is optimized for short barrels and provides excellent performance when suppressed, making it ideal for discreet operations.
  • Operating System: Short-stroke gas piston.72 This system prevents hot propellant gases from entering the receiver, making the weapon run cooler and cleaner than a direct impingement system, which can improve reliability during high-volume fire.
  • Barrel Lengths: UKSF variants are typically short-barreled rifles (SBRs) with barrel lengths around 9 inches for.300 BLK and 11.5 to 12.5 inches for 5.56mm.72
  • Key Features: The MCX’s recoil system is fully contained within the upper receiver, allowing the weapon to be fired with the stock folded. This is a significant advantage for operations in extremely confined spaces or from within vehicles.73 Its design allows for rapid changes of caliber, barrel length, and handguard configuration.

5.2.2 Sidearms: The Glock 17/19 Series

The SAS, along with the wider British military, has standardized on the Austrian-made Glock pistol, prized for its simplicity, reliability, and high magazine capacity.

  • Glock 17 Gen 4 (L131A1): This is the full-size model, designated L131A1 in UK service.74 It is the primary sidearm for overt operations.
  • Caliber: 9x19mm Parabellum.74
  • Magazine Capacity: 17 rounds.74
  • Weight (Loaded): Approx. 905 g.74
  • Glock 19 Gen 4 (L132A1): This is the compact model, favored for its balance of size and capacity. Its smaller frame makes it easier to conceal, rendering it ideal for covert operations, close protection duties, or as a personal sidearm when a full-size pistol is not required.74
  • Caliber: 9x19mm Parabellum.74
  • Magazine Capacity: 15 rounds (also accepts Glock 17 magazines).74
  • Operating System (Both): Both pistols are short recoil-operated, striker-fired handguns with a polymer frame.74

5.2.3 Sniper Systems: Precision and Power

SAS sniper teams are equipped with a range of specialized rifles to engage targets from medium to extreme long ranges and to defeat hardened targets.

  • L115A3 Long Range Rifle: The standard long-range anti-personnel sniper rifle is the Accuracy International L115A3.78
  • Caliber:.338 Lapua Magnum (8.59×70 mm).78 This cartridge offers significantly better long-range performance and resistance to wind deflection than the older 7.62x51mm NATO round.
  • Action: Bolt-action.80
  • Effective Range: In excess of 1,100 meters.78
  • Anti-Materiel Rifles: To engage light vehicles, communications equipment, and targets behind cover, the SAS employs.50 BMG (12.7×99 mm) rifles. These include the Accuracy International AW50 bolt-action rifle and the semi-automatic Barrett M82.79

5.2.4 Support and Specialist Weapons

  • Machine Guns: For squad-level fire support, UKSF uses the FN Minimi in both 5.56mm (L108A1) and 7.62mm (L110A2) variants. The venerable 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) remains in service for vehicle-mounted and sustained-fire roles.
  • Grenade Launchers: The standard 40mm underslung grenade launcher, fitted to the L119A2, is the Heckler & Koch AG-C / L17A2, which replaced the older M203.81
  • Combat Shotguns: The current-issue combat shotgun is the Benelli M4 Super 90, a semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun designated as the L128A1.83 It is used primarily for dynamic entry (breaching doors) and in close-quarters battle.83

The complete embrace of modularity is the defining characteristic of the modern SAS arsenal. The L119A2 and MCX are not just rifles but core platforms for a system of integrated accessories—optics, lasers, lights, suppressors, and grenade launchers—that allow the operator to tailor the weapon precisely to the mission. This philosophy is a direct consequence of the varied and high-tempo operational demands of the post-9/11 era.

Section 6: The Future Operator – A Speculative Analysis

The operational history of the Special Air Service is one of continuous adaptation. As the strategic focus of the United Kingdom and its allies pivots away from two decades of counter-insurgency and towards an era of renewed great power competition, the Regiment is poised for another significant evolution. The future battlespace will be defined by near-peer state adversaries, contested domains, and the pervasive influence of emerging technologies. For the SAS, this will likely mean a return to its foundational roles of deep reconnaissance and sabotage, but executed with 21st-century tools and in radically new operational environments.

6.1 The Shift from Counter-Terrorism to Near-Peer Competition

The prevailing defense strategies of Western nations are now primarily oriented towards deterring and, if necessary, confronting near-peer adversaries such as Russia and China.86 This marks a fundamental shift from the counter-terrorism (CT) and counter-insurgency (COIN) missions that have dominated the last 20 years.

For the SAS, this strategic realignment implies a change in primary mission sets. While the high-readiness domestic CT role will remain, the focus of expeditionary operations will likely move away from “manhunting” insurgents and towards the “classic” SAS tasks envisioned by Stirling during WWII.86 In a conflict against a sophisticated state adversary, the Regiment’s value will lie in its ability to conduct high-risk, high-gain missions deep within denied areas. These missions would include:

  • Special Reconnaissance: Deploying small teams to provide persistent, clandestine observation of critical enemy assets, such as anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) missile systems, air defense nodes, and command and control centers.88
  • Sabotage and Direct Action: Conducting precision strikes against these high-value strategic targets to disrupt the enemy’s warfighting capability.
  • Unconventional Warfare: In an occupied friendly nation, the SAS would leverage its historical expertise to train, advise, assist, and potentially lead local resistance movements, creating a guerrilla threat in the enemy’s rear.86

6.2 The Digital Battlefield: Integrating Cyber, Space, and AI Capabilities

Future conflicts will not be confined to the physical domains of land, sea, and air. They will be fought across the electromagnetic spectrum and in the digital and space domains simultaneously. Special operations forces like the SAS are uniquely positioned to act as the critical human interface between these domains—the “physical-to-digital” link.87

This integration will likely create new roles and capabilities for SAS teams:

  • The “Space JTAC”: Building on the traditional role of the Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) who directs air strikes, future SAS operators may be trained to act as “Space JTACs.” A deployed team could provide terminal guidance for space-based assets, direct satellite reconnaissance to a specific target, or potentially designate targets for future space-based weapon systems.89
  • Cyber-Physical Operations: Operators could be tasked with missions that directly enable cyber warfare. This might involve physically accessing and planting exploitation devices on enemy infrastructure, such as fiber-optic cables, data centers, or air defense radars, allowing friendly cyber forces to gain access to closed networks.89
  • AI-Enhanced Operations: Artificial intelligence and machine learning will be critical force multipliers. AI algorithms will rapidly process vast amounts of intelligence data from multiple sources (satellite imagery, signals intelligence, etc.) to identify enemy patterns, predict movements, and cue reconnaissance teams to high-probability target locations. For the operator on the ground, AI-driven software in their tactical devices will enhance situational awareness and accelerate decision-making, drastically shortening the “sensor-to-shooter” link.90

6.3 Evolving Threats and Environments: From the Arctic to Megacities

The new strategic focus will also force the SAS to adapt its skills to new and challenging physical environments.

  • The High North: Renewed competition with Russia has brought the Arctic back into focus as a potential theater of conflict. The extreme cold, unique terrain, and vast distances of the High North demand specialized skills and equipment. The Regiment’s Mountain Troop, which specializes in Arctic and mountain warfare, will likely see its importance and resources increase, and the entire force will need to enhance its proficiency in extreme cold-weather operations.89
  • Urban Warfare in Megacities: The global trend of mass urbanization means that future conflicts are increasingly likely to occur within the dense, complex, and multi-layered environments of megacities. This will require an evolution of the CQB skills honed by the CRW wing, scaling them up from clearing a single building to operating across vast, populated urban landscapes, where distinguishing combatants from non-combatants is a supreme challenge.

6.4 Future Materiel: Next-Generation Weaponry and Soldier Systems

The SAS operator of the future will be an even more lethal, protected, and networked node on the battlefield.

  • Next-Generation Weapon Systems: The trend towards modular, multi-caliber weapon systems will continue. The adoption of the SIG MCX, with its ability to rapidly switch between 5.56mm and.300 BLK, is a clear indicator.72 UKSF will closely monitor the development of next-generation ammunition, such as the 6.8mm cartridge adopted by the U.S. Army for its Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, and will likely adopt similar intermediate-caliber, high-performance rounds to defeat advanced body armor.91
  • Integrated Soldier Systems: The individual operator’s equipment will become a fully integrated system. This will include advanced night vision devices with augmented reality overlays that display navigation points, friendly force locations, and target data (similar to the American ENVG-B system).92 Personal-level ISR will become standard, with operators deploying nano-drones for immediate reconnaissance of buildings or routes ahead.
  • Human-Machine Teaming: SAS teams will increasingly operate alongside autonomous and semi-autonomous systems. Robotic “mules” will carry heavy equipment on long-range patrols, and unmanned ground and aerial vehicles will be used for reconnaissance, perimeter security, and potentially direct action, allowing the human operators to be projected forward while minimizing their exposure to risk.90

In essence, the future role of the SAS represents a return to its original strategic purpose, but updated for the information age. Stirling’s vision was to use small teams to attack an enemy’s industrial-age “centers of gravity”—airfields and supply lines. In a future conflict, those centers of gravity will be digital networks, satellite uplinks, and integrated air defense systems. The SAS’s enduring value will be its ability to provide the highly trained, adaptable human element that can physically access and disrupt these critical nodes in a way that remote assets cannot. The individual operator will evolve from a self-sufficient warrior into a hyper-connected node in a multi-domain network, whose primary value will be not just their skill with a carbine, but their ability to leverage the full spectrum of joint-force capabilities at the tactical edge.

Summary of Evolution

The following table provides a consolidated overview of the evolution of the 22 Special Air Service, tracking its primary roles, key tactics, and representative small arms across distinct historical eras.

Era / Key Conflict(s)Primary Role / MissionKey Tactics EmployedKey Small Arms / Weapon Systems
WWII North Africa (1941-43)Deep Penetration RaidingLRDG-transported infiltration; Vehicle-mounted assaults on airfields; Dismounted sabotage.Vickers ‘K’ Machine Gun; M2 Browning HMG; Lewes Bomb; Thompson SMG.
WWII Europe (1943-45)Sabotage & Unconventional WarfareParachute insertion; Railway and convoy ambushes; Liaison with local resistance forces (Maquis).Armed Jeeps (Vickers K); Vickers MMG; 3-inch Mortar; Sten SMG.
Malayan Emergency (1948-60)Jungle Counter-InsurgencyLong-range deep jungle patrols; “Hearts and Minds” civil action; Ambush and tracking operations.L1A1 SLR; Sterling SMG; Bren Gun.
Dhofar Rebellion (1962-76)Counter-Insurgency & AdvisoryTraining and leading indigenous Firqat forces; “Hearts and Minds”; Mountain warfare.L1A1 SLR; GPMG; Browning M2 HMG.
The Troubles / CT (1970s-90s)Domestic Counter-Terrorism; Hostage RescueClose Quarter Battle (CQB); Dynamic entry; Coordinated sniper overwatch.HK MP5; Sig Sauer P226; Browning Hi-Power; G60 Stun Grenade.
Falklands War (1982)Special Reconnaissance; Direct ActionCovert Observation Posts (OPs); Raids on airfields; Man-portable air defense.M16/AR-15; L1A1 SLR; GPMG; FIM-92 Stinger.
First Gulf War (1991)Strategic Reconnaissance; Search & DestroyVehicle-borne “Fighting Columns”; Scud hunting; Long-range desert patrols.Land Rover 110 w/ M2 HMG, Mk 19 AGL, Milan ATGM; M16/M203.
Post-9/11 (2001-Present)Counter-Terrorism; “Manhunting”Intelligence-driven precision raids; High-tempo CQB; Direct Action against High-Value Targets.L119A1/A2 (Colt Canada C8); Glock 17/19; L115A3 Sniper Rifle.
Future (Speculative)Near-Peer Competition; Multi-Domain OpsDeep reconnaissance of A2/AD systems; Cyber-physical enablement; Unconventional warfare.SIG Sauer MCX (Multi-caliber); Next-Gen Squad Weapons (e.g., 6.8mm); Integrated soldier systems; Autonomous platforms.


If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Sources Used

  1. How did the SAS transform the Second World War? | Imperial War …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-did-the-sas-transform-the-second-world-war
  2. SAS: Owning The Desert – Warfare History Network, accessed September 6, 2025, https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/sas-owning-the-desert/
  3. SAS Brigade in North-Africa – TracesOfWar.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/7109/SAS-Brigade-in-North-Africa.htm
  4. The Special Air Service (SAS) Originals | Defense Media Network, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-sas-originals-daring-to-win/
  5. David Stirling – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stirling
  6. Who Was David Stirling, Mastermind of the SAS? – History Hit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.historyhit.com/who-was-david-stirling-mastermind-of-the-sas/
  7. David Stirling: The Phantom Major | National Army Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/david-stirling
  8. Ukraine’s Long-Range Special Operations: Lessons from Desert …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/06/02/ukrainian-special-operations-sas-lessons/
  9. Special Air Service – National Army Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/SAS
  10. Special Air Service – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service
  11. Wartime History – The official website of the Special Air Service Regimental Association, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.marsandminerva.co.uk/history/wartime-history-sas/
  12. Origins of the Special Forces | National Army Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/special-forces-origins
  13. History of the Special Air Service – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Special_Air_Service
  14. 28 August 1941: The birth of the SAS through previously unpublished photos, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.ww2wrecks.com/portfolio/28-august-1941-the-birth-of-the-sas-through-previously-unpublished-photos/
  15. Secret Agents, Secret Armies: The Real Rat Patrol | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/secret-agents-secret-armies-real-rat-patrol
  16. The SAS’s greatest weapon during WW2 – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dhXJ4Alf-0I
  17. WWII special assault rifles built for the SAS only – Milsurps, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=63461&page=2
  18. Special Air Service – Vickers MG Collection & Research Association, accessed September 6, 2025, https://vickersmg.blog/in-use/british-service/the-british-army/special-air-service/
  19. Lewes bomb – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewes_bomb
  20. Jock Lewes – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Lewes
  21. Soldier of Fortune 002: SAS Heroes – John ‘Jock’ Lewes – Warlord Community, accessed September 6, 2025, https://warlord-community.warlordgames.com/soldier-of-fortune-002-sas-heroes-john-jock-lewes/
  22. WHO DARES WINS with a LEWES BOMB! – HazmatNation, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.hazmatnation.com/who-dares-wins-with-a-lewes-bomb/
  23. Weapons of the SAS: A Legacy of Innovation in WWII – ROGUE HEROES Paddy Mayne, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69dbgEoe_0A
  24. LEWES, John Steel | ͏ – Commando Veterans Archive, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.commandoveterans.org/JohnLewesSAS
  25. SAS WWII Combat Gear – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp4x2DSG7SU
  26. List of World War II weapons of the United Kingdom – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_weapons_of_the_United_Kingdom
  27. List of SAS operations – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SAS_operations
  28. SAS Special Air Service in Normandy – French resistance – DDay-Overlord, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/resistance/sas
  29. The SAS’s Willys MB Jeeps A History of Stealth and Firepower – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VY4j3Qjcoc
  30. SAS/Commando Jeeps in Europe – AFV WWII – Britmodeller.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235054946-sascommando-jeeps-in-europe/
  31. Special Air Service (SAS) | History, Organization, & Operations – Britannica, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Special-Air-Service
  32. Malayan Emergency | National Army Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/malayan-emergency
  33. A Successful Counterinsurgency – Jackson School of International Studies, accessed September 6, 2025, https://jsis.washington.edu/jsjournal/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2017/04/Cynthia_Anna.pdf
  34. Post War History – The official website of the Special Air Service Regimental Association, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.marsandminerva.co.uk/history/post-war-history-sas/
  35. What tactics were used during the Malayan Emergency? – Quora, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.quora.com/What-tactics-were-used-during-the-Malayan-Emergency
  36. Malayan Scouts (Special Air Service Regiment) – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Scouts_(Special_Air_Service_Regiment)
  37. Take Risks Early: The SAS Mindset for Tracking – Recoil Magazine, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.recoilweb.com/take-risks-early-the-sas-mindset-for-tracking-166325.html
  38. Dhofar rebellion – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhofar_rebellion
  39. David Murphy reviews “The Dhofar War: British Covert Campaigning in Arabia 1965-75” by Stephen Quick | Journal Of Military History and Defence Studies, accessed September 6, 2025, https://ojs.maynoothuniversity.ie/index.php/jmhds/announcement/view/30
  40. The Dhofar War and the Myth of ‘Localized’ Conflicts – The Strategy Bridge, accessed September 6, 2025, https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2018/1/12/the-dhofar-war-and-the-myth-of-localized-conflicts
  41. The Dhofar War – British Modern Military History Society, accessed September 6, 2025, https://bmmhs.org/the-dhofar-war/
  42. The Firqat – Oman (Dhofar) 1969-1976 – Britain’s Small Wars, accessed September 6, 2025, https://britains-smallwars.com/campaigns/oman/page.php?art_url=firqat
  43. A Proxy War in Arabia: The Dhofar Insurgency and Cross-Border Raids into South Yemen, accessed September 6, 2025, https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/files/119638834/A_Proxy_War_in_HUGHES_Acc21Apr2014_GREEN_AAM.pdf
  44. L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle
  45. Centrefire self-loading military rifle – SLR, L1A1 – 1957 | Collection Object | Royal Armouries, accessed September 6, 2025, https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-275474
  46. Battle of Mirbat – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mirbat
  47. Sterling submachine gun – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun
  48. The Sterling Submachine gun: Cold War SMG – Guns.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.guns.com/news/2013/03/29/sterling-submachine-gun
  49. SAS – Weapons – M16 & Variants – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/m16.php
  50. M16 AR-15 Armalite 5.56 mm self-loading rifle, 1960 (c) | Online Collection, accessed September 6, 2025, https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1978-11-49-1
  51. Special Air Service – Counter Revolutionary Warfare – SAS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.sasregiment.org.uk/crw.html
  52. International Counter-Terrorism: British Special Air Service (SAS) – jewish virtual library, accessed September 6, 2025, https://newsite.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/british-special-air-service-sas
  53. SAS – Counter Terrorism – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/counter-terrorism/
  54. Revisiting Operation Nimrod 45 years later – Crisis Response Journal, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.crisis-response.com/Articles/714909/Revisiting_Operation_Nimrod.aspx
  55. Operation Nimrod: The Iranian Embassy Siege – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/operation-nimrod-the-iranian-embassy-siege-2/
  56. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
  57. Operation Nimrod: When the British SAS Rescued Hostages From Iranian Embassy Siege, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sofmag.com/operation-nimrod/
  58. Iranian Embassy siege | National Army Museum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/iranian-embassy-siege
  59. Operation Nimrod: 17 Minutes to Freedom at Princes Gate • Spotter Up, accessed September 6, 2025, https://spotterup.com/operation-nimrod-17-minutes-to-freedom-at-princes-gate/
  60. How do the SAS decide what equipment to use for specific missions, like the Iranian Embassy siege? – Quora, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-SAS-decide-what-equipment-to-use-for-specific-missions-like-the-Iranian-Embassy-siege
  61. SAS – History – Falklands – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/history/falklands/
  62. That time two countries’ Special Forces squared off in combat – We Are The Mighty, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/that-time-two-countries-special-forces-squared-off-in-combat/
  63. Falklands SAS – Re-enactment/Historic Airsoft, accessed September 6, 2025, https://airsoftpacific.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=41114
  64. SAS – History – Desert Storm – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/history/desert-storm/
  65. The SAS Operations | Gulf-war – Britain’s Small Wars, accessed September 6, 2025, https://britains-smallwars.com/campaigns/gulf-war/page.php?art_url=gulf-sas
  66. SAS – Operations – Victor Two – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/sas-operations/desert-storm/
  67. Equipment & Weapons – OoCities.org, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.oocities.org/sascentre/equipweap.html
  68. British 22 SAS Sniper pictured here firing down on Taliban positions from a CH-47 Chinook helicopter armed with a Canadian Lapua 338. Sniper rifle [634×471] – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/oz82h6/british_22_sas_sniper_pictured_here_firing_down/
  69. Type-A L119A2 Rifle, 10.5″ Barrel | BG Defense, accessed September 6, 2025, https://bgdefense.com/product/l119a2/
  70. L119A2: The New British SOF Rifle – Forgotten Weapons, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.forgottenweapons.com/l119a2-the-new-british-sof-rifle/
  71. EMG Colt Canada L119A2 Gas Blowback Airsoft Rifle by Archwick, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.emgarms.com/13728/
  72. SIG MCX – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
  73. UK Royal Marines Commandos Adopt SIG Sauer MCX – The Armourers Bench, accessed September 6, 2025, https://armourersbench.com/2025/03/28/uk-royal-marines-commandos-adopt-sig-sauer-mcx/
  74. Glock 17 Pistol | UK Armed Forces – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/weapons/glock-pistol/
  75. Why is the Glock 19 pistol the favorite of the world’s most elite forces? – Sandboxx, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.sandboxx.us/news/why-is-the-glock-19-the-favorite-pistol-of-special-forces/
  76. The Modern UKSF (SAS/SBS) Kit List #1 – The Reptile House, accessed September 6, 2025, https://thereptilehouseblog.com/2019/11/10/uksf-inspired-impression-kit-list-by-john-danter/
  77. Glock – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock
  78. L115A3 Long Range ‘Sniper’ Rifle | The British Army, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/small-arms-and-support-weapons/l115a3-long-range-sniper-rifle/
  79. Gallery No 39b – Weapons – Rifles – British Armed Forces & National Service, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britisharmedforces.org/pages/nat_rifles_.htm
  80. SAS Weapons – L96A1 Sniper Rifle – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/l96.php
  81. Special Air Service (SAS) Weapons – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/
  82. List of sniper rifles – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sniper_rifles
  83. British Military Weapons – Combat Shotgun – Elite UK Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.eliteukforces.info/weapons/combat-shotgun/
  84. Shotgun Dits – Unconventional Soldier Blog, accessed September 6, 2025, https://unconventionalsoldier.uk/2022/11/18/shotgun-dits/
  85. British Army Combat Shotgun | Military.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.military.com/video/guns/shotguns/british-army-combat-shotgun/2330479047001
  86. How the Pentagon can use special operations … – Atlantic Council, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/the-next-decade-of-strategic-competition-how-the-pentagon-can-use-special-operations-forces-to-better-compete/
  87. Special Operations Force Must Build on Gains Made > U.S. … – DoD, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4033945/special-operations-force-must-build-on-gains-made/
  88. What would special forces do in a peer conflict? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/15hqnq7/what_would_special_forces_do_in_a_peer_conflict/
  89. Space and Ice: Envisioning Special Operations Forces’ Role in …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/space-and-ice-envisioning-special-operations-forces-role-in-future-operational-environments/
  90. Emerging Technology | Arms Control Association, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.armscontrol.org/blogs/emergingtech
  91. The Royal Marines’ New Firearm: The Sig Sauer MCX – The National Interest, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/the-royal-marines-new-firearm-the-sig-sauer-mcx
  92. Technology for the Next Generation of Special Forces | L3Harris® Fast. Forward., accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/editorial/2024/05/technology-next-generation-special-forces

Delta Force: The Evolution of the 1st SFOD-D

The creation of the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (1st SFOD-D) was not a routine organizational change within the U.S. Army; it was a revolutionary act born of strategic necessity and driven by the singular vision of one man. It represented a fundamental shift in military doctrine, a direct response to a new and insidious form of warfare that the Western world was unprepared to confront. The unit’s genesis is rooted in the turbulent geopolitical landscape of the 1970s and was shaped profoundly by the hard-won philosophical and structural lessons of the world’s premier special operations unit, the British Special Air Service (SAS).

1.1 The Post-Vietnam Threat Landscape

The decade following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam was marked by a dramatic and violent escalation of international terrorism. This new form of conflict was asymmetric, targeting civilians and symbols of state power with brutal efficiency. High-profile incidents such as the 1970 mass hijacking of five commercial airliners by Palestinian terrorists and, most searingly, the massacre of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, were broadcast into homes worldwide.1 These events exposed a critical vulnerability in the doctrine and structure of Western militaries, including that of the United States. The U.S. Armed Forces, honed for conventional, large-scale warfare against the Soviet Union, possessed no dedicated, full-time capability to conduct surgical, high-risk counter-terrorism (CT) and hostage rescue operations on foreign soil.2

The initial U.S. government response was primarily diplomatic and relegated to the domain of law enforcement. In 1972, the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism was established, and policies were hardened to make no concessions to terrorists holding hostages.1 However, these measures were reactive and lacked a proactive, military instrument capable of projecting force to resolve such crises abroad. The U.S. military of the era, a “hollow force” still recovering from the strains of the Vietnam War, had seen its special operations capabilities significantly reduced and was institutionally ill-equipped to address this emerging threat.4 This strategic gap was the void that Delta Force was conceived to fill.

1.2 Colonel Charles A. Beckwith: The Visionary Founder

The architect of this new capability was Colonel Charles Alvin Beckwith, a decorated and famously tenacious U.S. Army Special Forces officer whose career seemed to be a perfect crucible for forging such a unit. “Chargin’ Charlie,” as he was known, was a career soldier with an extensive and diverse combat record that included platoon leadership in the Korean War, unconventional warfare advisory roles in Laos as part of the covert Operation Hotfoot, and multiple combat tours in Vietnam.5

His most formative command experience prior to Delta was leading the elite special reconnaissance unit codenamed Project Delta (Operational Detachment B-52) in Vietnam.9 In this role, Beckwith was not merely a commander but a talent scout, personally selecting men for long-range, high-risk missions deep within enemy territory. He used this command as a laboratory to test and refine the principles of assessment and selection that would later become the bedrock of 1st SFOD-D.7 Beckwith’s personal reputation was one of immense physical and mental toughness, famously surviving a.50 caliber machine gun bullet to the abdomen in 1966—a wound so severe that he was initially triaged as beyond saving.5 This near-death experience, combined with his unyielding drive, gave him the unique credibility and iron determination required to challenge the Army’s institutional inertia and champion his vision for a new kind of force.

1.3 The SAS Blueprint: A Philosophical and Structural Import

The single most significant influence on Charles Beckwith’s vision was his experience as an exchange officer with the British 22 Special Air Service Regiment from 1962 to 1963.6 This was not a passive observational tour; Beckwith commanded 3 Troop, A Squadron, during counter-insurgency operations in the Malayan Emergency.5 It was in the jungles of Malaya that he absorbed the core tenets of the SAS, which he recognized as the solution to the capability gap he saw in the U.S. military.

The lessons Beckwith imported were not merely tactical; they were deeply philosophical. He witnessed firsthand the paramount importance of a selection process designed to identify psychological resilience, self-reliance, and character above all other attributes.6 The SAS model was built not on equipment or rigid doctrine, but on the individual operator—a highly intelligent, adaptable, and internally motivated soldier who could solve complex problems with minimal supervision in the most hostile environments. This operator-centric philosophy, which prioritized finding the right person and then giving them the skills, contrasted sharply with the U.S. Army’s conventional approach. He also learned the value of small, autonomous teams and the absolute necessity of tough, brutally realistic training that pushed men to their limits.6

This experience created a fundamental schism in Beckwith’s thinking from the prevailing U.S. Special Forces doctrine of the time. While the Green Berets were focused on their primary mission of unconventional warfare—training and advising indigenous forces—Beckwith saw the need for a national-level force of “doers,” not just “teachers”.11 Upon his return from the United Kingdom, he authored and repeatedly submitted a detailed report outlining the U.S. Army’s vulnerability and proposing the creation of an SAS-type unit. For years, his efforts were thwarted by an Army bureaucracy that saw no need for such a force and believed any such missions could be handled by existing units.9

1.4 Forging “The Unit”: Overcoming Resistance

By the mid-1970s, the unrelenting wave of global terrorism made the strategic necessity of Beckwith’s proposal undeniable. The U.S. government concluded it needed a dedicated, full-time special operations unit capable of responding to high-level threats, and Beckwith was finally tasked with its creation.2 On November 19, 1977, the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta was officially established.5

The creation of Delta was not without internal friction. The conventional Army leadership, and even some within the Special Forces community, remained skeptical. To bridge the immediate counter-terrorism gap while Delta underwent its arduous two-year stand-up process, Colonel Bob “Black Gloves” Mountel of the 5th Special Forces Group was tasked with forming an interim unit named Blue Light.3 Composed of volunteers from the 5th SFG, Blue Light represented the institutional belief that the CT mission could be handled within the existing Special Forces structure. This created a palpable rivalry between the two nascent organizations.14

This internal resistance highlights a crucial point: the founding of Delta Force was not just a response to an external threat but also a successful doctrinal rebellion against the U.S. Army’s prevailing post-Vietnam mindset. Beckwith’s vision challenged the established order by arguing that the specialized, high-stakes mission of hostage rescue and direct action required a dedicated, national-level asset with a unique selection process and training regimen, separate from the broader mission of unconventional warfare. The ultimate deactivation of Blue Light and the full operational status of Delta in 1979 marked the victory of this specialized doctrine, a doctrinal shift that would fundamentally reshape the future of U.S. special operations.

Section 2: Trial by Fire: Early Operations and Foundational Lessons

The first decade of the 1st SFOD-D’s existence was a formative period defined by trial, error, and hard-won lessons. The unit’s most public and catastrophic failure, Operation Eagle Claw, paradoxically became the most important catalyst for its long-term success. This mission, along with subsequent operations in Grenada and Panama, did not just shape Delta Force; it forced a revolutionary restructuring of the entire U.S. special operations enterprise, creating the integrated system of command and support that defines it today.

2.1 Operation Eagle Claw (April 1980): The Successful Failure

Just months after becoming fully operational, Delta Force was tasked with its first and most daunting mission: Operation Eagle Claw, the attempt to rescue 52 American diplomats and citizens held hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran.5 The plan was extraordinarily complex, involving elements from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps in a multi-stage infiltration deep into hostile territory.16

The mission ended in tragedy at a remote desert staging site codenamed “Desert One.” A series of unforeseen challenges, including a severe sandstorm (a haboob), led to mechanical failures that reduced the number of mission-capable RH-53D Sea Stallion helicopters below the mandatory abort threshold of six.6 During the subsequent withdrawal, a helicopter collided with an EC-130 refueling aircraft, resulting in a massive explosion and the deaths of eight American servicemen.9

A comprehensive post-mission analysis, most notably by the Holloway Commission, revealed that the failure was not a result of any shortcoming on the part of the Delta assault force.18 Rather, the mission collapsed under the weight of systemic, institutional deficiencies within the U.S. military at the time 4:

  • Fragmented Command and Control (C2): The mission was planned and executed by an ad-hoc Joint Task Force with no standing command structure. Lines of authority were ill-defined, leading to poor communication and a lack of unified control at the operational level.4
  • Inadequate Aviation Support: The Marine Corps pilots and Navy RH-53D helicopters were not selected for their expertise in this specific mission profile. They lacked sufficient training and experience in long-range, low-level night flight in desert conditions and had never trained with the special operations forces they were tasked to support.4 The U.S. military simply had no dedicated special operations aviation unit.
  • Flawed Operational Security (OPSEC): The intense need for secrecy led to extreme compartmentalization during planning. This prevented different service components from collaborating effectively and, most critically, precluded a full-scale, integrated rehearsal of the entire mission. The first time all elements of the complex plan came together was on the night of the operation itself.4

2.2 The Phoenix from the Ashes: Birth of JSOC and the 160th SOAR

The debacle in the Iranian desert, while a national humiliation, forced a brutal and necessary self-assessment within the U.S. defense establishment. Colonel Beckwith, whose ground force never even left Desert One, provided scathing and insightful testimony during Senate investigations into the failure. His recommendations were a primary driver for the most significant reorganization of special operations in U.S. history.5

The ashes of Desert One gave rise to two new, elite organizations that would become the cornerstone of modern U.S. special operations:

  • Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC): Established in 1980, JSOC was created to be the standing, unified command that Operation Eagle Claw lacked. Its purpose was to provide a permanent headquarters for studying special operations requirements and techniques, ensuring interoperability and equipment standardization, and planning and conducting joint special operations missions.3
  • 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (160th SOAR): Formed to solve the critical aviation problem, the “Night Stalkers” became the world’s premier special operations aviation unit. Composed of the Army’s best pilots and specially modified aircraft, the 160th was created to ensure that elite ground units like Delta would have dedicated, highly proficient aviation support capable of penetrating any environment under the cover of darkness.3

This demonstrates that the primary evolution in this era was not within Delta itself, but in the creation of the ecosystem required for it to succeed. The lesson was clear: an elite unit is only as effective as the system that supports it.

2.3 Operation Urgent Fury (October 1983): A Lesson in Intelligence and Terrain

Three years later, during the U.S. invasion of Grenada, Delta was again put to the test. One of its primary missions was to conduct a helicopter assault on Richmond Hill Prison to rescue political prisoners.15 The mission proved to be another tactical failure, reinforcing the importance of granular intelligence.

The prison was located on a steep ridge, dominated by the higher ground of Fort Frederick, which housed a Grenadian garrison.22 As the 160th SOAR Black Hawks approached the prison to insert the Delta operators via fast-rope, they flew directly into a prepared, L-shaped ambush. The assault force was caught in a devastating crossfire from both the prison and, more critically, from the high ground at Fort Frederick.22 With their aircraft taking heavy damage and multiple crewmen wounded, the pilots were forced to abort the mission before the assault force could be inserted.23 The operation was a stark reminder that even with elite pilots and operators, a mission can be doomed by inadequate intelligence that fails to account for enemy disposition and the unforgiving realities of terrain.24

2.4 Operation Acid Gambit (December 1989): The Proof of Concept

The culmination of the decade’s painful lessons came during Operation Just Cause, the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama. Delta’s showcase mission was Operation Acid Gambit: the rescue of a U.S. citizen, Kurt Muse, from the rooftop of the Cárcel Modelo prison in Panama City.25

This operation was the antithesis of Eagle Claw and Urgent Fury. It was a model of precision, speed, and the seamless integration of the now-mature JSOC system.25 Supported by a Delta sniper element and overhead AC-130H Spectre gunships providing suppressive fire, MH-6 Little Bird helicopters from the 160th SOAR landed operators directly on the prison roof.25 The assault team breached the building, neutralized the guard tasked with executing Muse, and extracted the hostage in a matter of minutes.25

Although one of the extraction helicopters was hit by ground fire and crashed nearby, the operators and Muse took cover, established a perimeter, and were quickly recovered by ground forces.27 The mission was a resounding success. It was the first successful hostage rescue by a dedicated U.S. counter-terrorist team and served as the definitive proof of concept for the entire JSOC enterprise. It demonstrated that the systemic failures of Eagle Claw had been identified and corrected, validating the immense investment in creating a unified command and a dedicated special operations aviation force. The early struggles and failures had, in effect, served as an institutional inoculation against complacency, forcing a culture of brutal self-assessment and meticulous, integrated planning that would become the command’s greatest asset.

Section 3: Doctrinal and Tactical Evolution: From Counter-Terrorism to Global Manhunting

Following its validation in Panama, the 1st SFOD-D entered a period of profound doctrinal and tactical evolution. The narrow counter-terrorism and hostage-rescue mission for which it was founded expanded dramatically, first into a strategic role within conventional conflicts and later into the primary instrument for a global campaign against transnational terrorist networks. This evolution was driven by the changing nature of global conflict, transforming the unit from a reactive “emergency response” force into a proactive, intelligence-driven engine of modern warfare.

3.1 The Gulf War (1991): Special Reconnaissance in Conventional War

The 1991 Persian Gulf War marked Delta’s first major deployment in a large-scale conventional conflict. Its role, however, was far from conventional. Instead of waiting for a hostage crisis, the unit was proactively employed deep behind Iraqi lines in a mission codenamed the “Great Scud Hunt”.28 In response to Iraq’s politically motivated Scud missile attacks on Israel, which threatened to fracture the Arab coalition, Delta Force—operating alongside its philosophical progenitor, the British SAS—was tasked with a critical strategic mission: locate and neutralize Iraq’s mobile Scud launchers.29

Teams were inserted deep into the western Iraqi desert by 160th SOAR helicopters or infiltrated overland in specially modified HMMWVs and Fast Attack Vehicles.29 They established covert observation posts along main supply routes, hunting for the elusive launchers. Once a target was identified, the teams would use laser designators to guide in coalition strike aircraft for a precision kill.29 This mission demonstrated a significant doctrinal expansion for the unit, leveraging its skills in stealth, small-unit tactics, and long-range reconnaissance to achieve a strategic effect in a major theater war. Concurrently, the trust placed in the unit’s professionalism and discretion was underscored by another, less public mission: providing the close protection detail for the overall CENTCOM commander, General Norman Schwarzkopf, in Saudi Arabia.9

3.2 Somalia (1993): The Crucible of Urban Combat

In August 1993, the unit deployed to Mogadishu, Somalia, as the core of Task Force Ranger, under the mandate of Operation Gothic Serpent. The mission was to capture the Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid and his key lieutenants to quell clan violence that was obstructing humanitarian aid efforts.32

The operation on October 3, 1993, to snatch two of Aidid’s top aides, devolved into the infamous Battle of Mogadishu. While the initial helicopter assault by Delta operators was flawlessly executed, the subsequent downing of two U.S. Army MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters by rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) plunged the task force into a desperate, 18-hour urban firefight.32 The battle was a brutal lesson in the realities of modern urban warfare. It highlighted the vulnerability of light forces in a dense urban environment against a numerous and determined enemy, and the critical need for integrated armored ground support and heavy air support—assets that had been requested by the task force commander but denied by the civilian leadership.36

Despite the tragic losses, the battle showcased the extraordinary skill and courage of the operators. The defense of the second crash site by Delta snipers Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randall Shughart, who voluntarily inserted into the overwhelming firefight to protect the injured pilot, was an act of heroism that earned them both the Medal of Honor posthumously—the first awarded since the Vietnam War.15

3.3 The Global War on Terror (2001-2021): The Apex of Direct Action

The attacks of September 11, 2001, catalyzed the most significant transformation in the unit’s history. In the subsequent Global War on Terror (GWOT), primarily in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq), Delta Force became the tip of the spear for U.S. military efforts.37 Its mission evolved from discrete, episodic operations into a sustained, high-tempo campaign of intelligence-driven direct action raids.39

Operating within the framework of joint JSOC task forces, such as Task Force 20 in the initial invasion of Iraq, the unit perfected the art of the “hunter-killer” mission.39 The objective was no longer just to eliminate a single target but to dismantle entire insurgent and terrorist networks. This led to the maturation and perfection of a new doctrinal cycle: “find, fix, finish, exploit, analyze, disseminate” (F3EAD). This process transformed the very purpose of a direct action raid. The “finish” phase (capturing or killing the target) was no longer the end of the mission; it was the beginning of the next intelligence cycle. The “exploit” phase—the rapid collection of cell phones, laptops, documents, and other intelligence from the objective—became paramount. This material was then quickly analyzed to “find” and “fix” the next node in the network, triggering another raid. This self-perpetuating operational cycle allowed JSOC to prosecute targets at an unprecedented tempo, systematically dismantling networks from the top down and the bottom up. It was a doctrinal revolution that turned a tactical unit into a strategic, network-centric weapon.

3.4 Modern Engagements: Surgical Strikes Against High-Value Individuals

The culmination of the skills, tactics, and intelligence integration honed over two decades of the GWOT is best exemplified by the unit’s more recent, high-profile operations against the senior leadership of global terrorist organizations. These missions represent the pinnacle of modern special operations.

The October 2019 raid in northern Syria, codenamed Operation Kayla Mueller, resulted in the death of the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.11 The operation was a masterclass in the capabilities developed during the GWOT. It involved long-range infiltration by helicopter, precise execution at the objective based on painstakingly developed intelligence, the use of specialized assets like military working dogs and robotics to clear a tunnel system, and the rapid exploitation of the site for intelligence before exfiltration.40

Such operations demonstrate a complete mastery of integrating multi-domain capabilities—human intelligence, signals intelligence, overhead surveillance, cyber operations, and dedicated aviation—to enable a single, decisive tactical action that achieves a strategic global impact. While the unit itself remains shrouded in official secrecy, its operational successes have had a profound and visible influence on the broader U.S. military. The tactics, techniques, and equipment pioneered and proven effective by Delta and other SOF units—from the use of railed handguards and advanced optics to the very concept of operator-driven gear customization—have gradually cascaded down to conventional forces, fundamentally modernizing the American warfighter.

Section 4: The Operator’s Toolkit: An Evolution of Small Arms

The small arms of the 1st SFOD-D are more than mere tools; they are a direct reflection of the unit’s tactical philosophy, its operational environment, and its relentless pursuit of a lethal advantage. The evolution of its arsenal from the off-the-shelf weapons of its founding to the highly customized, purpose-built systems of today tells a story of pragmatism, innovation, and adaptation. Each major transition in carbines and sidearms was driven by the hard-earned lessons of combat and a constant dialogue between the operator and the armorer.

4.1 The Foundational Arsenal (1977-1990s): Pragmatism and Power

In its formative years, Delta Force selected its weapons based on what was available, reliable, and best suited for its nascent counter-terrorism mission.

  • Sidearm – Colt M1911A1: The unit’s first sidearm was the venerable M1911A1. While it was the standard U.S. Army pistol at the time, its selection was heavily reinforced by the operators’ belief in the superior terminal ballistics, or “stopping power,” of the.45 ACP cartridge for close-quarters engagements, a critical consideration in hostage rescue scenarios where incapacitating a threat instantly is paramount.41 A key logistical advantage was that the.45 ACP round was also chambered in one of the unit’s early submachine guns, the M3A1 “Grease Gun,” allowing for ammunition commonality within an assault team.41 From the very beginning, the unit established a culture of weapon customization. Delta’s gunsmiths would extensively modify these stock 1911s, fitting them with improved sights, custom grips, and finely tuned triggers to enhance accuracy and ergonomics for the individual operator.41
  • Primary Carbine – CAR-15 Family (Colt Models 653 & 723): While the standard infantryman carried the long, 20-inch barreled M16 rifle, Delta immediately recognized the need for a more compact weapon for maneuverability inside buildings, vehicles, and aircraft. They adopted the Colt AR-15 carbine platform, generically known as the CAR-15.45 The Colt Model 723 became the unit’s signature primary weapon throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, seeing service in every major operation from Panama to Somalia.45 This carbine featured a 14.5-inch barrel, a two-position collapsible stock, and, critically, an M16A1-style upper receiver with A1 sights and a case deflector (often a C7 upper).49 The Model 723 was a crucial transitional weapon, bridging the gap between the Vietnam-era carbines and the M4 carbine that would eventually become the military standard.
  • Submachine Guns: For specialized roles, particularly those requiring extreme compactness or suppression, Delta employed a variety of submachine guns. Early inventory included the M3A1 Grease Gun and the German-made Walther MPL.43 However, the unit quickly adopted the Heckler & Koch MP5 family, which became the global gold standard for elite counter-terrorist units. Its roller-delayed blowback action made it exceptionally accurate and controllable, and variants like the integrally suppressed MP5SD were ideal for stealth entries.45

4.2 The Modernization Era (2000s-Present): Modularity and Reliability

The turn of the century and the onset of the Global War on Terror ushered in a period of rapid technological advancement in the unit’s small arms, driven by the need for greater adaptability and absolute reliability in harsh environments.

  • The M4A1 and SOPMOD: The unit adopted the M4A1 carbine, which standardized the 14.5-inch barrel and introduced a flat-top Picatinny rail upper receiver and a safe/semi/full-auto fire control group.53 The true revolution, however, came with the Special Operations Peculiar Modification (SOPMOD) program. Managed by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, SOPMOD was a kit of standardized accessories that could be mounted on the M4A1’s rails, allowing an operator to configure their weapon for any given mission.54 The SOPMOD Block I kit included items that are now ubiquitous but were groundbreaking at the time: the Knight’s Armament Company (KAC) Rail Interface System (RIS), vertical foregrips, the Aimpoint CompM2 red dot sight (M68 CCO), Trijicon ACOG 4x scopes, and the AN/PEQ-2 infrared aiming laser.54 This program marked a fundamental shift, turning the operator from a simple user of a fixed weapon into a “systems integrator” responsible for assembling a complex, mission-specific platform of optics, illuminators, and aiming devices.
  • The Transition to the Heckler & Koch HK416: The high operational tempo of the GWOT, particularly in the fine sand and dust of Iraq and Afghanistan, exposed the limitations of the M4A1’s direct impingement (DI) gas system. In a DI system, hot propellant gas is vented directly into the bolt carrier group to cycle the action, which introduces significant heat and carbon fouling into the weapon’s critical components.59 This issue was exacerbated by the increased use of suppressors, which raise the gas system’s pressure and cyclic rate, accelerating parts wear and increasing the frequency of malfunctions.59
    Seeking a more reliable solution, Delta Force collaborated directly with the German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch.43 The result of this collaboration was the HK416. The new rifle combined the familiar ergonomics and modularity of the AR-15/M4 platform with H&K’s combat-proven short-stroke gas piston system, adapted from their G36 rifle.62 In this system, the gas actuates a piston and operating rod, which then cycles the bolt carrier group. This prevents hot, dirty gases from entering the receiver, resulting in a weapon that runs significantly cooler, cleaner, and more reliably, especially in short-barreled configurations and with constant suppressor use.59 Delta Force adopted the HK416 around 2005, and it has remained the unit’s primary carbine ever since.64
  • The Shift to Glock Pistols: The unit’s long-standing use of the M1911 eventually gave way to modern polymer-framed, striker-fired pistols. The first major shift was to the Glock 22, chambered in.40 S&W.68 This choice was driven by the Glock’s legendary reliability, particularly its resistance to sand and dust, and a desire for higher magazine capacity than the single-stack 1911, while the.40 S&W cartridge was seen as a good compromise between the power of the.45 ACP and the capacity of 9mm.69
    In recent years, the unit has largely transitioned again, this time to 9x19mm Glock models, primarily the full-size Glock 17 and the compact Glock 19.71 This final move was facilitated by significant advancements in the terminal ballistics of modern 9mm hollow-point ammunition, which largely negated the perceived power advantage of the larger calibers. The switch to 9mm offered operators higher magazine capacity, lower recoil for faster follow-up shots, and reduced wear and tear on the pistols compared to the high-pressure.40 S&W round.70

4.3 Current Small Arms Inventory of 1st SFOD-D

The modern Delta Force operator is equipped with a suite of highly refined and customized weapon systems designed for maximum lethality, reliability, and adaptability across the full spectrum of special operations.

  • Primary Carbine: Heckler & Koch HK416
    The HK416 is the standard individual weapon for assault elements. The most common configuration is the D10RS variant, which features a 10.4-inch barrel.63 This short barrel length is optimized for close-quarters battle, maneuverability in vehicles, and is highly effective when paired with a suppressor. The carbines are typically outfitted with free-floating Geissele SMR handguards, Surefire SOCOM series suppressors, and a sophisticated suite of optics and aiming devices. Depending on mission requirements and operator preference, this can include an EOTech EXPS3 holographic sight with a G33/G45 magnifier, or a low-power variable optic (LPVO) like the Vortex Razor Gen II-E 1-6×24 for greater engagement range. For targeting, the AN/PEQ-15 or the newer, more compact Next Generation Aiming Laser (NGAL) is standard issue.76
  • Primary Sidearm: Glock 17 / Glock 19
    The unit’s primary sidearm is the Glock platform, chambered in 9x19mm. Operators may choose between the full-size Glock 17 for a duty role or the more compact Glock 19 (designated as the Mk 27 in SOCOM) for missions requiring greater concealability.71 These are not stock pistols; they are typically customized with features such as threaded barrels for suppressors, high-visibility sights, and aftermarket magwells for faster reloads. A significant number of operators now mount a miniature red dot sight, such as the Leupold DeltaPoint Pro, directly to the slide for faster and more precise target acquisition.72
  • Sniper & Precision Rifle Systems:
    For missions requiring precision fire at extended ranges, the unit employs several systems. The primary semi-automatic platform is the Knight’s Armament M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS), a highly accurate rifle based on the SR-25 and chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO.52 For extreme long-range engagements and anti-materiel tasks, Delta utilizes the Mk 15 Sniper Rifle, which is the military designation for the McMillan TAC-50. This is a bolt-action rifle chambered in the powerful.50 BMG cartridge, capable of engaging targets well beyond 1,500 meters.79

The following tables summarize the evolution of the unit’s primary weapons and detail its current-issue small arms.

EraCarbine / SMGSidearmCaliber(s)Key Rationale for Adoption
Founding Era (1977-1980s)Colt CAR-15 (Model 653) / H&K MP5Colt M1911A15.56mm / 9mm /.45 ACPCompactness for CQB, perceived stopping power of.45 ACP, ammunition commonality (1911/Grease Gun).
Classic Era (1980s-1990s)Colt CAR-15 (Model 723)Colt M1911A1 (Custom)5.56x45mm /.45 ACPRefined carbine for SOF use, proven and customized sidearm.
Modernization Era (c. 1995-2004)Colt M4A1 SOPMOD Block IGlock 22 / M1911A15.56x45mm /.40 S&WRail-based modularity, accessory integration, increased pistol capacity and reliability in desert conditions.
GWOT Apex (c. 2005-Present)Heckler & Koch HK416 (10.4″)Glock 17 / Glock 195.56x45mm / 9x19mmGas piston reliability (suppressed/desert use), improved terminal ballistics of modern 9mm ammunition.
Table 1: Evolution of 1st SFOD-D Primary Individual Weapons
Weapon SystemDesignationCaliberRoleKey Features / Attachments
CarbineHeckler & Koch HK416DN/APrimary Individual Weapon10.4-inch barrel, short-stroke gas piston, Geissele rail, EOTech EXPS3 or Vortex 1-6x LPVO, NGAL laser, Surefire suppressor.
SidearmGlock 19 / Glock 17Mk 27 Mod 2 (G19)Secondary / Concealed CarryPolymer frame, high capacity, often with slide-mounted red dot sight (Leupold DPP), threaded barrel, Surefire X300 weapon light.
Semi-Auto Sniper SystemKnight’s Armament M110M110 SASSDesignated Marksman / SniperSemi-automatic, free-floating barrel, high-magnification variable-power optic.
Anti-Materiel RifleMcMillan TAC-50Mk 15Extreme Long Range / Anti-MaterielBolt-action, detachable box magazine, heavy fluted barrel, high-magnification optic.
Table 2: Current Issue Small Arms of 1st SFOD-D

Section 5: The Future Operator: Speculative Trajectory for the Next Decade

As the United States military pivots from two decades of counter-insurgency to an era defined by strategic competition with near-peer adversaries, the 1st SFOD-D is poised for another significant evolution. The future battlefield will be vastly more complex and contested than the permissive environments of Iraq and Afghanistan. The unit’s trajectory over the next decade will be shaped by this new strategic reality, demanding adaptation in its core missions, the adoption of revolutionary new weapon technologies, and the integration of digital systems that will transform the very nature of the operator.

5.1 The Strategic Shift: Great Power Competition and the Gray Zone

The 2018 National Defense Strategy officially marked a fundamental shift in U.S. defense policy, prioritizing strategic competition with nations like China and Russia over the counter-terrorism focus of the post-9/11 era.81 This new strategic landscape presents a different set of challenges for which elite units like Delta must be postured. Future conflicts are less likely to be large-scale conventional wars and more likely to be waged in the “gray zone”—a contested arena below the threshold of armed conflict, characterized by ambiguity, information warfare, and proxy forces.81

For Delta Force, this means its role will likely broaden beyond the kinetic direct-action missions that defined its GWOT experience. The unit will be a critical tool for operating in politically sensitive areas, countering malign influence, and creating strategic dilemmas for adversaries. This may involve a return to the foundational roots of special operations: special reconnaissance in denied areas, unconventional warfare to support partners, and sophisticated counter-proliferation missions.84 However, these missions will be conducted in an environment characterized by sophisticated enemy surveillance, robust Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) systems, and contested electromagnetic and cyber domains.81 The era of permissive environments, where U.S. forces enjoyed near-total air superiority and freedom of digital communication, is over. Future operations will demand an unprecedented emphasis on low-signature techniques, operational autonomy, and the ability to function effectively in GPS- and communications-denied environments.

5.2 The Next Generation Armory: The 6.8mm Revolution

A key technological driver of change will be the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program. This initiative is set to field the SIG Sauer M7 rifle and M250 automatic rifle, replacing the M4 and M249 in close combat forces.87 The centerpiece of the NGSW program is its new, high-pressure 6.8x51mm common cartridge.90 This ammunition was specifically designed to defeat advanced enemy body armor at ranges where the current 5.56x45mm NATO round is ineffective, a direct response to capability advancements by near-peer competitors.90

U.S. Special Operations Command has been deeply involved in the NGSW’s development and is an “enthusiastic supporter” of the program, with units like the 75th Ranger Regiment already testing the weapons.89 It is highly probable that Delta Force will adopt a variant of the M7 rifle. This would provide operators with a substantial leap in individual lethality, barrier penetration, and effective range. However, this capability comes at a cost: the M7 is heavier than the HK416, and its larger ammunition means operators will carry fewer rounds for the same weight, reducing magazine capacity from 30 to 20 or 25 rounds.92 The adoption of this system, along with its integrated XM157 Fire Control—a computerized optic with a built-in laser rangefinder and ballistic calculator—will require significant changes in training, tactics, and logistics.89

5.3 Technological Overmatch: The Digitized Operator

The operator of the next decade will be a node in a vast, interconnected digital network, with technology augmenting their senses and decision-making capabilities.

  • Advanced Vision Systems: The evolution of night vision is moving beyond simple light intensification. The future lies in fused and integrated systems, such as the ENVG-B (Enhanced Night Vision Goggle – Binocular), which digitally combines high-definition white phosphor image intensification with thermal imaging.95 This provides a hybrid image that gives operators unparalleled situational awareness, allowing them to see in total darkness while also detecting heat signatures through obscurants like smoke or fog.97
  • Augmented Reality (AR) and Data Integration: These advanced vision systems will serve as the platform for augmented reality overlays. Critical data—such as navigation points, friendly force locations from a Nett Warrior-type device, drone feeds, and target information—will be projected directly into the operator’s field of view.97 This will dramatically accelerate the OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) loop, allowing for faster, more informed decisions under stress.
  • Artificial Intelligence and Robotic Teammates: On the battlefield, AI will be employed to rapidly sift through vast amounts of intelligence data to identify patterns and potential targets, while small, autonomous robotic systems will become integral members of the team.101 These robotic “mules” or drones will carry heavy equipment, provide persistent surveillance of high-risk areas, and potentially even engage threats, extending the team’s reach and reducing the direct exposure of human operators to danger.104
  • Human Performance and Exoskeletons: In the longer term, as the weight of new weapons like the M7 and advanced electronics continues to grow, technologies such as powered exoskeletons and soft exosuits may become viable solutions. These systems could augment an operator’s strength and endurance, allowing them to carry heavier loads, including enhanced body armor, without sacrificing mobility.104

This shift towards a technologically saturated battlefield will necessitate a re-evaluation of the operator profile. The GWOT perfected the “industrial-scale hunter-killer.” The era of great power competition will demand the rise of the “strategic operator.” This individual will still need to be a master of close combat and direct action, but their greatest value will lie in their cognitive abilities: cultural literacy, technological acumen, and the capacity to leverage a suite of advanced tools to achieve strategic effects, often through subtle, non-kinetic means. The future mission will be less about the number of doors kicked and more about the ability to shape the battlespace and influence an adversary’s decisions, often without firing a shot.



If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Sources Used

  1. The 1970s and the Birth of Contemporary Terrorism | RAND, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2015/07/the-1970s-and-the-birth-of-contemporary-terrorism.html
  2. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Force#:~:text=Delta%20Force%20was%20created%20in,unit%20in%20the%20early%201960s.
  3. Inside Delta Force: America’s Most Elite Special Mission Unit – SOFREP, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sofrep.com/specialoperations/delta-force-the-complete-guide/
  4. Operation Eagle Claw-Lessons Learned – DTIC, accessed September 6, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA402471.pdf
  5. Charles Beckwith: The Father of Delta Force – VA News, accessed September 6, 2025, https://news.va.gov/66538/charles-beckwith-father-delta-force/
  6. Beckwith, Charles Alvin A., COL – Together We Served Army, accessed September 6, 2025, https://army.togetherweserved.com/army/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=LegacySBV&type=Person&ID=144248
  7. DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF THE SPECIAL FORCES REGIMENT, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.swcs.mil/Portals/111/sf_beckwith.pdf
  8. Colonel Charles Alvin Beckwith – ARSOF Icon, accessed September 6, 2025, https://arsof-history.org/icons/beckwith.html
  9. Charlie Beckwith: How The Father Of Delta Force Formed The Elite …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/delta-force-founder-charlie-beckwith.html
  10. Charles Alvin Beckwith – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Alvin_Beckwith
  11. Delta Force – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Force
  12. COL Charles Alvin Beckwith – Military Hall of Honor, accessed September 6, 2025, https://militaryhallofhonor.com/honoree-record.php?id=2234
  13. Delta Force vs. Special Air Service (SAS): How do they compare? – General Discharge, accessed September 6, 2025, https://gendischarge.com/blogs/news/delta-force-vs-special-air-service
  14. Blue Light (counter-terrorist subunit) – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Light_(counter-terrorist_subunit)
  15. Delta Force: Missions and History – Military.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.military.com/special-operations/delta-force.html
  16. Operation Eagle Claw – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
  17. 1980 – Operation Eagle Claw > Air Force Historical Support Division > Fact Sheets, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458949/1980-operation-eagle-claw/
  18. The report – The National Security Archive, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB63/doc8.pdf
  19. Operation Eagle Claw-Lessons Learned – DTIC, accessed September 6, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA402471
  20. Operation Urgent Fury – Special Operations Warrior Foundation, accessed September 6, 2025, https://specialops.org/operation-urgent-fury/
  21. UrgentFury – Sgt Mac’s Bar, accessed September 6, 2025, http://www.sgtmacsbar.com/Articles/UrgentFury/UrgentFury.html
  22. List of operations conducted by Delta Force – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operations_conducted_by_Delta_Force
  23. Task Force 160 in Operation URGENT FURY – ARSOF History, accessed September 6, 2025, https://arsof-history.org/articles/v2n2_tf160_page_1.html
  24. United States invasion of Grenada – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Grenada
  25. Operation Acid Gambit: Delta Force in Panama – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/operation-acid-gambit-delta-force-in-panama/
  26. The Most Secret Delta Force Mission – Acid Gambit – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv9qJ63URSQ
  27. Operation Acid Gambit – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Acid_Gambit
  28. How Delta Force Works – Military – Science | HowStuffWorks, accessed September 6, 2025, https://science.howstuffworks.com/delta-force.htm
  29. Delta Force | SAS | Scud Hunting – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/operations/scud-hunting/
  30. Storming Norman : r/JSOCarchive – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/JSOCarchive/comments/1b95jdi/storming_norman/
  31. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operations_conducted_by_Delta_Force#:~:text=Delta%20was%20deployed%20during%20Desert,Norman%20Schwarzkopf%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia.
  32. The Battle of Mogadishu: Gregg Ackley’s Story — Team Red, White & Blue, accessed September 6, 2025, https://teamrwb.org/blog/battle-of-mogadishu-gregg-ackley-story
  33. Urban Warfare Project Case Study #9: The Battle of Mogadishu – Modern War Institute, accessed September 6, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-case-study-9-the-battle-of-mogadishu/
  34. Operation Gothic Serpent – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gothic_Serpent
  35. Operation Gothic Serpent: Remembering The Battle of Mogadishu | ASOMF, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.asomf.org/operation-gothic-serpent-the-battle-of-mogadishu/
  36. Battle of Mogadishu – Army University Press, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2022/February/Battle-of-Mogadishu/
  37. Operational Analysis of the Battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, 2001 | The Cove, accessed September 6, 2025, https://cove.army.gov.au/article/operational-analysis-battle-tora-bora-afghanistan-2001
  38. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) – Defense Casualty Analysis System, accessed September 6, 2025, https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/oef
  39. Joint Special Operations Command Task Force in the Iraq War – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Command_Task_Force_in_the_Iraq_War
  40. DECLASSIFIED: Delta Force Secret Black Ops Missions – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmzM7cOtE6I
  41. Colt 1911 | Delta Force Weapons – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/delta-force/weapons/colt-1911.php
  42. Which 1911 carries Delta’s – M1911 Forum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?66288-Which-1911-carries-Delta-s
  43. The Submachine Guns of Delta Force: A Unique History – Firearms News, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/guns-delta-force/473985
  44. Delta Force | Weapons | Guns – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/delta-force/weapons/
  45. D-Boys And Their Toys – WGW Blog, accessed September 6, 2025, https://wgwblog.com/2023/01/20/d-boys-and-their-toys/
  46. How do I make a CAR-15 AR Build ?? : r/guns – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/tqjj2m/how_do_i_make_a_car15_ar_build/
  47. CAR-15 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAR-15
  48. Colt CAR-15 Models Explained: More Than a Carbine – Pew Pew Tactical, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.pewpewtactical.com/car-15-models-explained/
  49. Breakdown // Colt RO723 “Gordy” PTW – The Geardo Crow, accessed September 6, 2025, https://thegeardocrow.com/2021/10/18/breakdown-colt-ro723-gordy-ptw/
  50. 90’s Delta Force Assault Rifle – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxoyV3MxYYI
  51. The Greatest CAR-15 Variant – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8FgG1TAoU
  52. US Special Operations | Weapons – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/
  53. M4 carbine – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine
  54. SOPMOD – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPMOD
  55. M4 SOPMOD Block I, II, III Weapon Conversion – Call Of Duty Modern Warfare II – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdEWjxyiKjs
  56. M4A1 SOPMOD Block 2 FSP Upper Receiver, Military Special – Charlie’s Custom Clones, accessed September 6, 2025, https://charliescustomclones.com/m4a1-sopmod-block-2-fsp-upper-receiver-military-special/
  57. SOPMOD history – Punisher Military Store | Tactical equipment in Ukraine, accessed September 6, 2025, https://punisher.com.ua/en/istoriya-sopmod./
  58. History of SOPMOD BLK I, first-hand account of its use with Special Forces. – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-cBwlXblmk
  59. Gas Piston vs. Direct Impingement AR-15s | USCCA, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/gas-piston-vs-direct-impingement-ar-15s/
  60. Direct Impingement vs. Gas Piston: Understanding How They Impact Recoi – Sightmark.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.sightmark.com/blogs/field-guide/direct-impingement-vs-gas-piston-understanding-how-they-impact-recoil
  61. What makes the HK416 the weapon of choice? : r/JSOCarchive – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/JSOCarchive/comments/yz7jal/what_makes_the_hk416_the_weapon_of_choice/
  62. Speculations about the new Delta Force carbine | WMASG – Airsoft …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://wmasg.com/en/news/view/10066
  63. HK416 | Delta Force – American Special Ops, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/delta-force/weapons/hk416.php
  64. Heckler & Koch HK416 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416
  65. Unleashing Power: Special Forces HK416 – The Elite Weapon You Need to Know, accessed September 6, 2025, https://certificates.acn.edu.au/special-forces-hk416
  66. The history of the HK416 in modern warfare – Task & Purpose, accessed September 6, 2025, https://taskandpurpose.com/military-life/history-hk416-modern-warfare/
  67. Do DEVGRU and CAG operators also use M4A1s and MK18s or do the only use the HK416? – Quora, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Do-DEVGRU-and-CAG-operators-also-use-M4A1s-and-MK18s-or-do-the-only-use-the-HK416
  68. Delta Force STI 2011: Competition Meets Operations – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_klgrR9je2c
  69. Glock Pistols | US Special Operations | Weapons, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/glock.php
  70. See This Gun? Why U.S. Special Forces Go To War Using Glock …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/see-gun-why-us-special-forces-go-war-using-glock-163916
  71. Glock 19: The Gun the FBI, Delta Force, the CIA and Army Special Forces Love – 19FortyFive, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/08/glock-19-the-gun-the-fbi-delta-force-the-cia-and-army-special-forces-love/
  72. Why is the Glock 19 pistol the favorite of the world’s most elite forces? – Sandboxx, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.sandboxx.us/news/why-is-the-glock-19-the-favorite-pistol-of-special-forces/
  73. G17’s in US military? : r/Glocks – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Glocks/comments/16n9sj2/g17s_in_us_military/
  74. What models of glock do they use in the CAG : r/JSOCarchive – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/JSOCarchive/comments/18ign17/what_models_of_glock_do_they_use_in_the_cag/
  75. Why the Glock is the sidearm of choice in Special Operations – We Are The Mighty, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/why-the-glock-is-the-sidearm-of-choice-in-special-operations/
  76. Delta Force Loadout: Gear Selection and Total Costs – Tier Three …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tierthreetactical.com/delta-force-loadout-gear-selection-and-total-costs/
  77. How Army Special Forces Worked the System to Get Glock Pistols | Coffee or Die, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.coffeeordie.com/article/special-forces-glock-pistols
  78. These are the Guns Used by Delta Force (United States) – CEOWORLD magazine, accessed September 6, 2025, https://ceoworld.biz/2023/12/18/these-are-the-guns-used-by-delta-force-united-states/
  79. McMillan TAC-50 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMillan_TAC-50
  80. McMillan TAC-50: A True AMR/Anti-Personnel Sniper Rifle – Gun Digest, accessed September 6, 2025, https://gundigest.com/article/mcmillan-tac-50-a-true-amr-anti-personnel-sniper-rifle
  81. Strategy for a New Era: USSOCOM Takes on Strategic Competition – Inter Populum, accessed September 6, 2025, https://interpopulum.org/strategy-for-a-new-era-ussocom-takes-on-strategic-competition/
  82. Strategic Competition and Stand-in Forces – Marine Corps Association, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/strategic-competition-and-stand-in-forces/
  83. Special ops expected to play key role in shaping future battlespaces in ‘non-physical domains’ | DefenseScoop, accessed September 6, 2025, https://defensescoop.com/2024/03/08/special-ops-role-shaping-future-battlespaces-non-physical-domains/
  84. How the Pentagon can use special operations … – Atlantic Council, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/the-next-decade-of-strategic-competition-how-the-pentagon-can-use-special-operations-forces-to-better-compete/
  85. Irregular Warfare Podcast – Back to the Future: Resetting Special Operations Forces for Great Power Competition | Empirical Studies of Conflict, accessed September 6, 2025, https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/irregular-warfare-podcast-back-future-resetting-special-operations-forces-great-power
  86. Near-Peer Competition Means Relook at Special Ops Missions, Socom Nominee Tells Congress – Joint Chiefs of Staff, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.jcs.mil/media/news/news-display/article/1705418/near-peer-competition-means-relook-at-special-ops-missions-socom-nominee-tells/
  87. Portfolio – PM SL – Next Generation Squad Weapons … – PEO Soldier, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Equipment/Equipment-Portfolio/Project-Manager-Soldier-Lethality-Portfolio/Next-Generation-Squad-Weapons-Program/
  88. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon – Combat Veterans, accessed September 6, 2025, https://combatvets.socialwork.msu.edu/armys-next-generation-squad-weapon
  89. Army moving forward with Next Generation Squad Weapon program – Joint Base San Antonio, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.jbsa.mil/News/News/Article/3333005/army-moving-forward-with-next-generation-squad-weapon-program/
  90. Next Generation Squad Weapon – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Squad_Weapon
  91. Army Announces 2 New Rifles for Close-Combat Soldiers – DoD, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3005746/army-announces-2-new-rifles-for-close-combat-soldiers/
  92. The Army’s new Rifle, and what it means for body armor., accessed September 6, 2025, https://acelinkarmor.com/the-armys-new-rifle-and-what-it-means-for-body-armor
  93. The Army’s Next-Generation Squad Weapon Is a Big Hit With …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/05/14/armys-next-generation-squad-weapon-big-hit-socom.html
  94. M7 rifle – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_rifle
  95. Unveiling the Dark: Top Army Night Vision Devices for Enhanced Visibility, accessed September 6, 2025, https://6857blakley.csail.mit.edu/army-night-vision-devices
  96. Advancements in Night Vision Devices – SP’s Land Forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.spslandforces.com/story/?id=875&h=Advancements-in-Night-Vision-Devices
  97. Integrated technology takes night vision to a new level | Article – Army.mil, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/243798/integrated_technology_takes_night_vision_to_a_new_level
  98. Top Night Vision and LWIR Technology Breakthroughs for Modern Warfare, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defence-industries.com/articles/top-night-vision-and-lwir-technology-breakthroughs-for-modern-warfare
  99. A Journey Through Time: The Evolution of Night Vision Technology | Blog – Troya Tech, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.troya-tech.com/Blog/409/A-Journey-Through-Time%3A-The-Evolution-of-Night-Vision-Technology
  100. Seeing and Not Being Seen: The Future of Night Vision | Peak Blog, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.peaknano.com/blog/seeing-and-not-being-seen-the-future-of-night-vision
  101. Top Six Emerging Technologies in the Defense Industry – PTC, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.ptc.com/en/blogs/aerospace-and-defense/emerging-defense-technologies
  102. Emerging Military Technologies: Background and Issues for Congress – FAS Project on Government Secrecy, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R46458.pdf
  103. Top 10 Military Technology Trends & Innovations for 2025 – StartUs Insights, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.startus-insights.com/innovators-guide/top-10-military-technology-trends-2022/
  104. Emerging Technologies | CNAS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/emerging-technologies-1